RECORDS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

RECORDS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

A series of Columbia University Press

Complete series list follows the index.

 SELECTED SOURCES
TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATED

^WALTER L.WAKEFIELD

and AUSTIN P. EVANS

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

NEW YORK
 Columbia University Press
New York Chichester, West Sussex
Copyright© 1969, 1991 Columbia University Press
All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wakefield, Walter L. (Walter Leggett)

Heresies of the high middle ages : selected sources, translated
and annotated / by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans.
p. cm.—(Records of western civilization)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-231-02743-5
ISBN 0-231-09632-1 (pbk.)
1. Heresies, Christian—History—Middle Ages, 600-1500—Sources.
2. Europe—Church history—Middle Ages, 600-1500—Sources.
I. Evans, Austin P. (Austin Pattersin)
II. Title. III. Series.
BT1315.2.W32 1991
273'.6—dc20 91-6827
CIP

Columbia University Press

books are printed on permanent and
durable acid-free paper

0
Printed in the United States of America

c 10 987654321
p 10 9 8
Records of Western Civilization is a series published under the auspices
of the International Committee on Medieval and Renaissance Studies of
the Columbia University Graduate School. The Western Records are, in
fact, a new incarnation of a venerable series, in the Columbia Records of
Civilization, which, for more than half a century, published sources and
studies concerning great literary and historical landmarks. Many of the
volumes of that series retain value, especially for their translations into
English of primary sources, and the Medieval and Renaissance Studies
Committee is pleased to cooperate with Columbia University Press in re¬
issuing a selection of those works in paperback editions, especially suited
for classroom use, and in limited clothbound editions.

Committe for the Records of Western Civilization

Joan M. Ferrante

Carmela Vircillo Franklin

Robert Hanning

Robert Somerville, editor

 Preface

This volume is the outcome of a larger project begun by the late Austin
P. Evans more than two decades ago. He intended to publish translations
of numerous documents which would illustrate the nature of the popular
heresies of the Middle Ages, the social context in which they appeared,
and the attempts to suppress them. To this end, he worked for a time
with the late Professor Anna M. Campbell and, after her retirement,
invited me into collaboration. Progress was slow and intermittent be¬
cause of professional and personal difficulties. At the time of Professor
Evans’s death in 1962 most of the documents included in the present
volume had been selected and were in the process of being translated,
but much less had been done with translations which were to illuminate
the social background of the heresies and the operations of the Inquisi¬
tion. It therefore seemed more practical to offer a volume less ambitious
than originally planned, yet one which might be of service to those
interested in this aspect of medieval history.
No substantial collection of sources for the study of medieval heresies
has been brought together in English translation since Samuel R. Mait¬
land in 1832 published his Facts and Documents Illustrative of the
History, Doctrine and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses.
A small collection for the use of students is found in The Pre-Reforma-
lion Period (Vol. Ill, No. 6, of Translations and Reprints, published by
the University of Pennsylvania [1897]); several pieces are included in
Ray C. Petry, A History of Christianity: Readings in the History of the
Early and Medieval Church (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962). Although
a few of the documents in the present volume appear in full or in part
in those collections or are to be found in translations of the works of
their respective authors, it seemed best in most cases to prepare our
own translations, for the sake of uniformity in style.
Relying in several instances on texts already prepared by Professor
Campbell, Professor Evans and I worked in the closest harmony and
cooperation. The result was an English text in which, apart from the
viu Preface

pieces which were added after his death, our respective contributions
could not be differentiated, though because of his long experience he
had assumed the task of general editorial supervision. Had he lived,
Professor Evans would have written an Introduction quite different in
form and content from the one I have supplied, for he intended to make
it an extended essay incorporating translated excerpts from further
sources which would reveal the socioeconomic setting of heresy. Al¬
though I have altered the basic plan of our work, to remark that in the
course of our collaboration I learned a great deal from him about
making a book would be only to repeat what contributors to the Records
of Civilization have said of him as an editor; beyond that I had always
the benefit of his learning and the pleasure of his gentle, never-failing
friendship.
A large number of scholars and publishers gave us permission to
translate from works which they produced. Acknowledgment is ex¬
pressed in connection with the translations of these items. Special
gratitude is owed to Professor Charles C. Mierow and to Miss Marjorie
Chibnall for the use of excerpts from translations which they have
published. The late Miss Marion Sherwood carefully read and improved
the translation of the Catharist ritual from the Provencal. Miss Joan
Ferrante did a skillful rendering of the Provencal text of the two items
comprised in Number 60.
Over the years a great many persons patiently answered our ques¬
tions, gave advice, helped us to obtain materials. Professor Evans would
have wished to acknowledge the help of his friend and colleague the late
Professor Dino Bigongiari, with whom he discussed many problems,
great and small. Professor Yosef Yerushalmi gave me the benefit of his
competence in the subject of the Inquisition and the Jews. Professor
Martin Grabmann sent us material which was at the time unobtainable
in this country. Professor Morton S. Enslin answered questions most
kindly, as did the staff of the Italian Information Center, especially Miss
Lucia Pallavicini. In the circumstances under which most of this volume
was prepared, far from library source collections, the cooperation of
many libraries was essential, as was the help of the library staff of the
State University College at Potsdam, notably Mrs. Marion Hess.
The extent to which any student of medieval heresy is indebted to
the work of great scholars in this field—Father Antoine Dondaine, O.P.;
Ilarino da Milano, O.F.M. Cap.; Herbert Grundmann; Arno Borst; and
Preface ix

Mile Christine Thouzellier, to name only a few—will be obvious from a

glance at the notes in this volume. Professors Jeffrey B. Russell and
Walter R. Weitzmann read parts of the manuscript; Professor William
T. H. Jackson, the general editor of the Records of Civilization, read it
all. Their suggestions were invariably most helpful. I was fortunate in
that Mrs. Michelle Kamhi of Columbia University Press was the editor
of this volume. Her skill and patience saved me from numerous pitfalls.
Any flaws which exist are my responsibility alone.
A grant from the New York State University Research Foundation,
and financial assistance made available by the late Dr. Frederick W.
Crumb of the State University College at Potsdam, helped to defray the
costs of materials and the preparation of the typescript, which Mrs.
Margaret P. Yolton expertly typed and retyped.
Mrs. Evans and my wife bore with Professor Evans and me con¬
stantly, encouraged and helped us, and listened patiently to the tales of
tribulations which beset what must have seemed to them—as it did at
times to us—a work never to be finished.
W. L.W.
Potsdam, N.Y.
December 1, 1968
BLANK PAGE
 Contents

INTRODUCTION
A Historical Sketch of the Medieval Popular Heresies .... 1
Sources for the History of the Heresies.56
A Note on the Translations.68

EARLY APPEARANCES OF THE HERESIES IN WESTERN

EUROPE
1. Early Traces of Heresy in France, Italy, and Spain ... 71
A. Leutard and the Bees.72
B. Vilgard at Ravenna, and Other Disturbances .... 73
2. “Manichaeans” in Aquitaine.73
3. Heresy at Orleans.74
A. A Report by Ademar of Chabannes.75
B. The Narrative of Paul, a Monk of Chartres .... 76
4. The Conversion of Heretics by the Bishop of Arras-Cambrai 82
5. Heretics at Monforte.86
6. Heretics at Chalons-sur-Marne and Bishop Wazo ... 89

THE DEVELOPMENT OF HERESY FROM THE LATE ELEVENTH

TO THE MID-TWELFTH CENTURY
7. Ramihrdus: Heretic or Reformer?.95
8. The Heresy of Tanchelm ..96
A. An Accusation by the Canons of Utrecht.97
B. Tanchelm’s Influence and His Death.100
9. “Manichaeans” near Sois^ons.101
10. Heresy in Ivoy, near Trier.105
11. Henry of Le Mans.107
A. Henry at Le Mans.108
B. Henry before the Council of Pisa.114
12. A Monk’s Description of the Errors of Henry.115
13. The Teachings of Peter of Bruys.118
 m«

xu Contents

14. Bernard of Clairvaux against Henry.122

A. Bernard’s Denunciation of Henry...122
B. Bernard’s Mission to Toulouse.125
15. An Appeal to Bernard of Clairvaux and a Sermon in Reply 126
A. An Appeal from Eberwin of Steinfeld against Heretics
at Cologne.127
B. A Sermon by Bernard of Clairvaux against Heresy . . 132
16. A Warning from Perigueux.138
17. An Appeal from Liege to the Pope.139
18. Eudo of Brittany.141
A. A Description of Eudo by an Anonymous Chronicler . 142
B. A Description of Eudo by William of Newburgh . . . 143
19. Arnold of Brescia.146
A. John of Salisbury’s Estimate of Arnold.147
B. Arnold’s Influence in Rome and His Death as Described
by Otto of Freising.148

THE SPREAD OF HERESY IN ITALY, 1160-1216

20. Civil Unrest as a Background for Heresy.151
21. The Letter of Master Vacarius against the Errors of Hugo
Speroni.152
22. The Origins of the Humiliati.158
23. The Heresy of the Cathars in Lombardy.159
24. The Origins of the Cathars in Italy.167
25. Bonacursus: A Description of the Catharist Heresy . . . 170
26. The Heresy of the Passagians.173
27. An Account of the Hospitality of Heretics by Yves of
Narbonne.185

HERESY IN SOUTHERN FRANCE, 1155-1216

28. A Debate between Catholics and Heretics.189
29. Action against Heresy in Toulouse.194
30. The Origins of the Waldensian Heresy.200
31. The Waldenses at the Third Lateran Council.202
A. A Report in the Chronicle of Laon.203
B. Walter Map’s Account of the Waldenses.203
32. A Profession of Faith by Waldes of Lyons.204
33. Stephen of Bourbon on the Early Waldenses ..... 208
34. A Debate between Catholics and Waldenses.210
Contents xiii

35. Alan of Lille: A Scholar’s Attack on Heretics. 214

36. The Reconciliation of a Group of Waldenses to the Church 220
A. The Establishment of the Society of Poor Catholics . . 222
B. Complaints against the Poor Catholics. 226
C. Waldenses, Humiliati, and Friars Minor. 228
37. An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies . 230
38. A Description of Cathars and Waldenses by Peter
of Vaux-de-Cernay. 235

HERETICAL MOVEMENTS IN NORTHERN EUROPE, 1155-1216

39. An Incident at Cologne in 1163. 243
40. The Fate of Heretics in England. 245
41. “Publicans” at Vezelay. 247
42. From Heresy to Witchcraft. 249
A. A Marvelous Incident at Rheims. 251
B. A Victory of Faith over “Heretical Magic” . . . . 254
43. The Spread of Heresy in Northern Europe. 256
A. Heretics in Arras. 256
B. Waldenses in Metz .. 257
44. The Amalricians. 258
A. The Condemnation of Amalricians at Paris . . . . 259
B. The Errors of the Amalricians. 262

HERESY IN THE THIRTEENTH AND EARLY FOURTEENTH

CENTURIES, 1216-1325
45. The Varieties of Heresy. 265
A. Heretical Sects in Trier. 267
B. Salvo Burci on Dissent among Heretics. 269
C. Five Minor Sects in Italy. 274
46. Dissent between the Poor Lombards and the Poor of Lyons 278
47. A Debate between a Catholic and a Patarine. 289
48. Subjects and Texts for Preaching against Heresy . . . . 296
49. James Capelli on the Cathars. 301
50. Moneta of Cremona: Excerpts from a Summa against the
Cathars. 307
51. The Summa of Rainerius Sacconi. 329
52. Waldenses in the Thirteenth Century. 346
53. Tenets of the Italian Cathars. 351
54. An Inquisitor’s Notebook, by Anselm of Alessandria . . 361
xiv Contents

55. Bernard Gui’s Description of Heresies.373

CATHARIST LITERATURE OF THE THIRTEENTH AND

FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
56. Bogomil Literature Adopted by the Cathars.447
A. The Vision of Isaiah.449
B. The Secret Supper.458
57. The Catharist Rituals ..465
A. The Ritual Translated from the Latin Text .... 468
B. The Ritual Translated from the Provencal Text . . . 483
58. A “Manichaean” Treatise.494
59. The Book of the Two Principles.511
60. The Catharist Church and Its Interpretation of the
Lord’s Prayer.592
A. A Vindication of the Church of God.596
B. A Gloss on the Lord’s Prayer.607

ABBREVIATIONS.631
appendix: a list of polemical sources.633
NOTES.639
bibliography.820
INDEX.847
 Introduction

A Historical Sketch of the Medieval

Popular Heresies

This volume presents translations of documents relating to the popular

heresies in Western Europe in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth
centuries. Neither this Introduction nor the translations which follow
constitute a complete history of medieval heresy or heretical sects. But
since some readers perhaps are approaching the subject in detail for the
first time, it seems advisable in introductory comment to speak of the
general characteristics of the heretical movements and to trace their
history briefly, wherever possible calling attention to the thickets of
scholarly controversy which lie along the path.1 Mention must also be
made of the nature of the available source materials from which these
translations were selected and some of the problems encountered in
studying them.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULAR HERESIES

First, we must examine the meaning of the word “heresy” in the

Middle Ages and attempt to define more specifically the term “popular
heresies.” Medieval Christianity comprised a body of faith drawn from
the Scriptures, discussed and defined by the Church Fathers, the popes,
and the ecclesiastical councils, and taught by the clergy. The criterion
of orthodoxy in the West was the teaching of the Roman see,2 which
the good Christian would accept as a whole, although as late as the
eleventh century considerable variations in practice and belief did not
raise serious questions about the fundamental unity of the Western
Church. But the experience of every Christian generation had corrob¬
orated Paul’s warning: “There must also be heresies.”3 Disavowal of, or
dissent from, the truth preserved by the Church meant damnation; out-
2 Introduction
side the Church there was no salvation, for Paul had also commanded:
“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid”;
and “Anathema to those who preach false doctrine.”4 Heresy was
treason to God, the worst of offenses against Christian society, a chal¬
lenge to every duly constituted authority. It was a deadly contamination,
making necessary constant vigilance against infection, and the Fathers
had agreed that to deal with it was the duty of the whole hierarchy,
aided by the secular arm as circumstances required.5
Theologically, heresy was defined in the Middle Ages as doctrinal
error held stubbornly in defiance of authority. Gratian, for example,
quoted the Fathers, especially St. Jerome and St. Augustine, to the effect
that heresy was the persistent rejection of part or all of orthodox
doctrine after correction had been offered.6 For Aquinas heresy was the
denial of matters of faith which had been defined by the Church.7 The
authors of medieval polemics against heretics did little more than
paraphrase the Fathers in defining heresy, repeating the emphasis on
individual choice: “The Greek word hereses is rendered secte in Latin.
In them each chooses and pursues what to him seems right.”8 Or, “He
is a heretic who, while keeping the outward appearance of Christian
religion, devises or follows false opinion, either contemptuously or in
contumacy or from a desire for human approval, earthly reward, or
worldly pleasures.”9 From such definitions, controversialists, canonists,
and theologians could proceed to discuss matters raised by the existence
of heresy: description of it and refutation, methods by which heresy
could be corrected or suppressed, the permissibility of punishments, and
the respective roles of the Church and the secular authority.
The situation, especially in the early years of our period, was such,
however, that it was not always easy to determine clearly at a given mo¬
ment what was or was not heresy. Examining the popular movements
that were labeled heretical, particularly those before the middle of the
twelfth century, one sees a certain imprecision about them in the minds
of contemporaries. Churchmen had read of the heresies of the early
Church and sometimes knew more of them than they could readily learn
about contemporary sects; an initial reaction to dissent in their own time
often was to see the past revived in the present and to attribute to suspect
groups of their own day the errors they found discussed in the polemics
of the Fathers.10 Popes issuing warnings or exhortations or answering
appeals were usually content to speak in generalities.11 Bishops review-
Historical Sketch 3
ing cases under their jurisdiction found it necessary to consult with each
other or to seek more learned advice, and even then would be somewhat
uncertain about the degree of offense.12 There were clergy who had
neither the knowledge, the ability, nor the will to instruct their com¬
municants soundly enough to permit them to distinguish error from
approved doctrine.18 Hence, there was a looseness in the use of the
word “heresy” that did not entirely disappear even when the great
scholastics had done their work and when definitions in matters of faith
were more readily available.
In common usage, moreover, “heresy” could denote more than er¬
roneous theology,14 and many tensions in medieval life gave rise to
controversies in which charges of heresy were loosely made. The usurpa¬
tion of ecclesiastical prerogatives by secular powers, or too ambitious an
exercise of papal or episcopal authority, made for situations like the
investiture controversy, in which the cry of heresy was raised by both
sides. A glance at the index of Lea’s History of the Inquisition under the
entry “Heresy” will show the variety of individuals, beliefs, sects, and
actions which were condemned as heretical by one authority or another.
Men could speak of “heresy” when they meant schism, resistance within
the Church to papal administration, political opposition to the hierarchy
from secular powers, advocacy of religious toleration, sorcery, or intel¬
lectual arrogance; in most cases they could make a show of theological
justification for using the term, even if the Church did not always
officially accept these enlargements of meaning.
In this study of the popular heresies we may ignore most of the
misuses of the term, or uses barely justified. We may also exclude the
doctrinal deviations that sprang from learned discussions among intel¬
lectuals, arising in and usually confined to the schools and the universi¬
ties.15 However important or provocative the speculations of such men
as Berengar, Gilbert de la Porree, or Abelard, the resultant controversy
directly affected relatively few persons and the appeal was to the mind,
not to the heart.
Lea observed that the really dangerous sectarian movements were
those which aroused the emotions.10 There is more to popular heresies
than excited passions, of course, but it is significant that they aroused
the fervor of the laity, who became active participants and were moved
to give evidence of their spiritual convictions in their daily lives. The
reception of heresy may partly be explained by the extent to which the
4 Introduction
teaching of the dissenters encouraged the expression of religious ideals
simply and in daily life, that is, without the assumption of clerical or
monastic status. Many men and women who were stirred by the deepen¬
ing piety of the eleventh century and after must have found inadequate
opportunity as laymen within the Church to express their religious aspi¬
rations, and were tempted to find spiritual satisfaction outside it. Thus,
to a certain extent, the popular heresies give the appearance of religions
for the laity,17 but we must beware of overstatement. The desire for a
pure Church and for greater morality in human life also revitalized
medieval monasticism, as it had the eleventh-century papacy. Reformist
ideas were first explicitly formulated in clerical circles; they then spilled
over into lay society, where they were welcomed and extended.18
Unquestionably the motivation of the popular heresies was religious,19
but this did not reduce their importance on the social scene. They were
part of the general spiritual revival which may be dimly seen to have
begun as early as the eighth century and which reached its height in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Their rise paralleled the expressions of
vitality in such diverse forms as the crusades, expanding commerce, new
social forms in countryside and town, movement toward the new hori¬
zons glimpsed on earth or in men’s minds. It would be better to say that
all of these phenomena were interwoven. Investigation of the social and
economic context in which the heresies appeared has not produced
satisfactory explanations of their origins in material terms alone,20 yet
religion had everywhere an impact on daily life, and similarly the social
base influenced the expression of religious aspirations. Certain religious
ideas, for example, were especially attractive to groups affected by the
partial transformation of a feudal-agrarian society to an urban-com¬
mercial one. The Church was responding to the needs of this changing
society with new institutions: expansion of its pastoral and educational
services, new monastic orders, and refinements of dogma, ail of which
reflected its perception of spiritual needs. Yet these did not satisfy all
men, and patterns of belief and behavior more radical than those
sponsored by the Church appeared. Some of them were clearly intended
to be religious reforms, entirely Christian in character, looking back¬
ward, or forward, to what was deemed to be a purer Church; beside
these, however, appeared other movements which seemed to orthodox
eyes to abandon the fundamental bases of Christian society.
When we speak of the popular heresies, which challenged the author-
Historical Sketch 5
ity and sometimes, it seemed, the existence of the Roman Church, we
must be content with a definition in general terms: The reference should
be to religious doctrines which influenced numbers of people in all ranks
of society to act in patterns outside contemporary orthodox Christian
observance and to reject interpretation of doctrine by any authority but
their own. The popular heresies were widely varied in their expression.
At the beginning of our period they appeared in isolated communities;
in the twelfth century, magnetic leaders aroused the enthusiasm of
crowds by their preaching, while others worked quietly at organizing and
formulating ideologies. Thus sects formed.21 Their members might share
certain viewpoints with other groups, without diminishing the bitter dis¬
agreement about other propositions over which they quarreled as bitterly
with each other as they did with the Roman Church. Some common
characteristics were advocacy of a return to the apostolic practice of
preaching and poverty, and the intent to free the Christian people and
Church from enslavement to worldly ambition and wealth. There was
protest against concentration of authority in the hierarchy, against any
disciplinary power in matters of faith, against abuse of the sacraments.
The sacramental system itself was challenged. All sects thought of them¬
selves as the true Christians and they usually emphasized chastity,
preaching, and communal life; required moral purity as a qualification
for one who administered the sacraments; and deemphasized the role of
any intermediary between God and man. Even the Cathars, the most
extreme of all sects in opposition to the Roman Church, and by it re¬
garded as the greatest enemy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
insisted that only they were true followers of Christ and successors to
the apostles; and it is probable that they won their first following in the
West by their demonstration of piety and rigorous morality, which ap¬
pealed so strongly to religious sentiments of the era, rather than because
of their dualistic theology.
No one can say how many people were involved in the medieval
popular heresies. There were few areas of Europe in which heresy was
not reported during the Middle Ages. The Rhineland, the Low Coun¬
tries, the valleys of the Seine and the Marne, the Midi of France, and
northern Italy are the areas most frequently mentioned as affected in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries. After about a.d. 1150 the influence of
heretics as against that of the Catholic clergy grew to be predominant
in parts of Languedoc and in some cities of northern Italy. Contempo-
6 Introduction
rary estimates of their numbers are vague.22 Relatively few malcontents
or nonconformists can sometimes provoke a great stir among men who
take issues as seriously as religion was regarded in that period, yet the
situation did seem grave enough early in the thirteenth century to per¬
suade popes to call for a crusade against heretics and to create a new
legal tribunal to pursue them vigorously.
Nearly every discussion of the medieval sects attempts some schematic
classification of them. Nineteenth-century historians were apt to see two
major movements. One was the heresy of the Cathars, which was
presumably a continuation of the long history of religious dualism and
a successor of the ancient Manichaean heresy. It was based on the
concept of a fundamental conflict between principles or gods of good
and evil, and between spirit and matter, their respective domains—a
premise which led to the complete rejection of the Roman Church as a
creature and servant of the devil, the prince of this world. The other
movement was thought to comprise those heresies whose participants
believed that the existing Church had lost its authority because it had
fallen away from Christian ideals, or was unnecessary, or had been dis¬
placed by the revelation of a new order.23 In the broadest sense, this
twofold classification—dualists with ancient Eastern antecedents, and
reformers arising within the Western Church—has some validity, but it
is oversimplified. Not only are the Eastern origins of the Cathars dis¬
puted, but this group shared the puritanical views of most of the re¬
forming sects, and some of their practices. Thus, more elaborate clas¬
sifications have been suggested in which, in addition to the “Neo-
Manichaean” or “Neo-Gnostic” heresy, distinctions are made between
sects which were evangelistic and emphasized asceticism or poverty;
those which were excessively penitential in their practice; those which
were in rebellion against some aspect of the hierarchy, discipline, or
services of the Church; and those which had Judaistic aspects.24

THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS

To explain the emergence of heresy as an important element in

European society in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, historians have
suggested a variety of reasons, most of which would have astonished or
amused men of that day, who had no doubt at all that heresy was a
product of the devil’s wiles, a recurrence of the ancient wickedness
which had vexed the early Church. Something of that attitude has per-
Historical Sketch 1
sisted into more recent times in the minds of those who see the origin
of heresy in human pride, fallibility, and ignorance,25 but other theories
may be more fully documented. Many historians have concluded that
heresy arose as a protest against defects in the medieval Church and
against corruption among its clergy.26 Others have thought it to be a
protest against material conditions of life; some have worked it into
theories of class struggle.27 Heresy has been explained as part of the
general intellectual revival of the Middle Ages28 and in half a dozen
other ways.
The major tendency in recent studies has been to see the popular
heresies as an integral part of the development of medieval Christian
life and to explain their appearance as a result of the increased and
deepened piety which lies behind so many other events of the time. The
revolutionary reform program sponsored by the papacy in the eleventh
century, the vigor and energy of the crusades, the rush to new monastic
orders, the enthusiasm for church-building, the cult of relics, and the
flowering of religious art and architecture flowed from this pious ebul¬
lience. Piety produced heretics as well as saints. Closer aquaintance
with the Gospels stimulated in receptive minds a desire for morality and
behavior closer to that of apostolic times. Acceptance of the monastic
ideals of asceticism, personal poverty, and chastity as the highest
Christian code led to criticism of prevailing ecclesiastical standards. In
the Hildebrandine reform program, simony and clerical marriage and
incontinence were excoriated by the supreme Christian authority. Small
wonder, then, when the incapacity of many of the clergy to give spiritual
guidance either by teaching or example was apparent and when to
sensitive consciences they seemed unfit to mediate between God and
man, that anticlericalism, criticism of the functioning of the clergy,
should appear. This sometimes developed into antisacerdotalism, some¬
thing more serious, which denies the powers of the clergy and en¬
courages the repudiation of other institutions of the Church.
The majority of historians today would no doubt agree that the in¬
creased piety and spirit of reform operating entirely within the Church
had a great deal in common with the piety and moral fervor which led
men out of the Church and into heresy.29 That attitude would not have
entered the minds of most orthodox men of the Middle Ages. Heretics,
to them, were dangerously different, and the terms applied to them
8 Introduction
common report said, were antichrists, magicians, loathsome creatures;
gossip and rumor put at their door all kinds of nasty practices, such as
child murder, indiscriminate sexuality, even worship of the devil.
That last charge, no doubt encouraged by folk tales and spread by the
scurrilous talk that often surrounds nonconformists, was promoted by
misinterpretation of the doctrines of the Cathars. Other revivalist and
reforming sects, for all their opposition to the Church and clergy, ac¬
cepted the fundamental Christian dogmas: God as Creator of all, Christ
as his Son become truly man; the Trinity; the doctrine of the last days.
Not so the Cathars. Once they could be clearly seen, in the later twelfth
century (their origins are still in dispute), they appeared to deny
orthodox doctrines completely. They divorced God the Father from this
world, which belonged to the god of evil, author of all that is visible.
Human souls they held to be angels, imprisoned after falling from their
celestial estate through sin. The Trinity was denied; Christ was an
emissary from, but not the Son of, God; only in appearance, not in
actuality, did he become man. The Roman Church was not holy but the
devil’s instrument. Salvation could come only to “good Christians” by
the baptism Christ taught to the apostles, a baptism in the Spirit, not
in water.
It is this dualistic creed which raises the disputed question of
Catharist origins. To explain the rise of reforming sects no one seeks
reasons outside the conditions of their time in Western Europe. Attempts
to give the Waldenses an apostolic foundation, for example, have been
abandoned,30 and the Donatist element in many medieval sects is not
traced back to the great heresy of the fourth century.31 But the dualists’
explanation for the origin of good and evil and for the conflict between
spirit and matter is older than Christianity; it existed side by side with
the orthodox Church for centuries and influenced Christian theologians
even as they fought it. After the sixth century, there were few traces of
dualism in Western Europe until it reappeared, perhaps in the eleventh
century, certainly in the twelfth. Sects which held dualistic tenets, how¬
ever, had been found repeatedly during the Christian era in Asia Minor,
Greece, and the Balkans; one of them, the heresy of the Bogomils, was
spreading vigorously in the eleventh century. Does this mean that
dualism, which in the Cathars constituted the basis for the most feared
of medieval heresies, did not spring from native roots but was an
importation from the East?
Historical Sketch 9

Contemporary observers had no hesitation in identifying medieval

dualistic sects with ancient heresy. Today there are historians who argue
that those sects were indeed created by missionaries from the Balkans
and thus were inheritors of the ancient tradition; but other scholars
disagree and explain dualistic tendencies in Western heresy, at least in
the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, as a product of contemporary
Western conditions. No one on either side of the argument insists on
one explanation to the complete exclusion of the other. Those who
argue for the ancient lineage admit that the revival of piety in the West
created conditions which made the acceptance of dualism easier; those
who see dualism as intrinsic in Western religious development allow for
some modifying influences from Eastern sects. But the differences of
opinion about where the emphases should fall are sharp. Thus, a brief
review of the chief expressions of religious dualism in the Christian era
may provide a basis for assessing these historical theories, and will serve
to introduce the names of the older heresies so often encountered in
medieval sources. What occupies the next few pages is the merest sketch
of the dualist sects that are often brought into the discussions of the
origins of the Cathars.

The Dualist Tradition

In its most explicit form, religious dualism gives an answer to the
question: “If God is good, whence comes evil?”32 Surely, whatever is
eternal and spiritual in the universe and in man is the work of a divine
creator. But can evil—that which is temporal and material—derive from
the same source? Fully developed, dualism replies that there must be
two creative forces operating in two irreconcilably opposed realms of
existence. Man then is seen as one of the battlegrounds where the forces
of good and evil clash.
Elements of dualism are present in some degree in most of the
“religions of salvation” originating in the millennium preceding Christ.
To single out only some of its manifestations: It appears in the teachings
of Zoroaster (d. ca. 531 b.c.) in Persia; it found a place in Greek re¬
ligion, especially in the Orphic sects, and was reinforced by the philo¬
sophical dualism of Pythagoras and Plato; and in the Hellenistic world
when Christianity emerged, dualistic ideas developed from Greek and
oriental sources had already begun to influence Judaism.33
Within Christianity there were elements which might encourage a kind
10 Introduction
of dualistic attitude. The teachings of Jesus, especially as interpreted by
Paul, speak of God’s grace affecting a world which is not by nature evil
but above which we may be lifted up; by love we may transcend the
world. There is a kingdom of God and a kingdom of this world; there is
the love of God and there is affection for things of this earth. Paul spoke
also of the law in contrast to grace, of bondage to Satan and freedom of
the spirit. This world is not evil by nature, but man may renounce it for
higher things, put away the false and know the true, enter the kingdom
of God. As Christianity developed, the tendency to emphasize the
contrast of spirit and matter may have been stimulated by preoccupation
with the “forces of darkness” that besiege the soul and by the desire to
emphasize spirituality through mortification of the flesh. Moreover, the
influence of Neo-Platonism, the last of the great schools of Greek
philosophy, reinforced that contrast. For the Neo-Platonist, God was a
transcendent, indefinable One, apart from the world. From the One a
hierarchy of emanations flow down to the individual soul, which longs
to return to union with the divine. In the thought of Plotinus (d. a.o.
270), matter is more illusory than it is evil, but it confines the soul, and
the powers of darkness work to thwart the soul’s escape from the flesh
and the world. Through Augustine and other Christian thinkers Neo-
Platonism profoundly influenced Christian philosophy over succeeding
centuries and its influence may have paved the way for more radical
dualistic concepts. To note this should not obscure the fact that the
main body of Christian orthodox thought rejected any dualism which
would deny God as creator of all or negate the humanity of Jesus.84
But there were, in the early centuries of Christianity, groups which
called themselves Christian, most of them sharing philosophical-religious
theories known as Gnosticism, in which open and explicit dualism was
very much in evidence. Gnosticism seems to have derived from many
sources—Persian, Jewish, Greek, and Egyptian—and was exhibited in
an extraordinary variety of sects. What these sects had in common was
to take away from God the responsibility for a wicked world where the
souls of men are temporarily incarcerated in human bodies, from which
they are promised release and salvation through gnosis, secret knowl¬
edge.35 Gnostics accepted Christ as the bearer of knowledge and inter¬
preted him in their own terms, formulating a “Christian dualism” which
early churchmen, after some hesitation, renounced and strenuously
fought. For most Gnostics, God was the First Principle, beneath whom
Historical Sketch 11
many lesser, semidivine, eternal beings (eons) were arrayed in a perfect
spiritual creation (the pleroma). Among the eons, about whose nature
Gnostic sects disagreed, transgression of some kind led to a fall from
perfection, which in turn gave rise to a subordinate creator (the
Demiurge). He it was who formed the world, which like its maker is
imperfect and antagonistic to the supreme, remote, and perfect Divine
Being. But somehow elements of divinity were encased in the material
world as souls of men. It became God’s purpose to release them from
the worldly prison by revealed knowledge of himself. Jesus, who was
variously interpreted as an eon, as part of God, or as an emanation from
him, brought the revelation to man, but in his mission he never assumed
a human body or shared characteristics of this world except in appear¬
ance. Gnostics generally envisaged mankind as sharing the divine ele¬
ment in unequal amounts and thus as being divided into classes. Those
who were called Perfect or Elect were considered relatively near to
redemption through possession of wisdom. Among the remainder of
mankind, those who became “believers” might eventually achieve salva¬
tion; for others there was no hope of eternal life because they entirely
lacked the divine knowledge.
Many Gnostic teachers who claimed gnosis directly from God or by
secret tradition from the apostles had no more than a temporary influ¬
ence; some, however, did create communities or sects which perpetuated
their doctrines on the fringes of Christianity or completely outside it.
Of the great variety of Gnostic groups, two may be chosen to illustrate
the relationships between them and Christianity.
In the middle of the second century, in Asia Minor and at Rome,
Marcion taught that the universe was composed of a visible world,
created by the Demiurge, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, in opposi¬
tion to the world of the true God. Jesus was a manifestation of the
Father, who came to teach a gospel of love and mercy standing in ir¬
reconcilable opposition to the stern justice of the Old Testament. For
his scriptures Marcion used only ten epistles of Paul and part of the
Gospel of Luke, edited to remove traces of Judaism. He accepted the
distinction between the Elect, the believers, and those who were without
hope of redemption. Initiates in his communities had to practice the
sternest asceticism, but believers could postpone baptism and withdrawal
from the world until the moment of death.86 Marcion’s doctrines were
thought to be a serious danger in the second century, and their memory
12 Introduction
lingered for a long time.87 But the archetype of dualist heresy in Christian
eyes soon came to be another offshoot of Gnosticism, which also
incorporated Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Christian ideas. This was
Manichaeism.
Mani (d. ca. 276), teaching in the Sassanid kingdom of Persia,
founded a church organization which spread rapidly in the next three
centuries. He postulated two realms of being, Light and Darkness, each
under its own lord. The visible world was called into existence in the
course of a vast struggle in which Evil attacked Good and was with
difficulty repulsed, but not before the Lord of Darkness had seized
particles of Light and imprisoned them in the bodies of Adam and Eve,
whom he created. Jesus was one of the divine Messengers sent to Adam
and his descendants with God’s message of redemption for the Light
imprisoned in them. He devised a process by which Light was distilled
from souls by the influence of the moon and the sun and was drawn
back to its own kingdom. This would continue until all of it had been
restored and the two realms were again entirely separate. Like Marcion,
Mani divided his followers into the Elect, filled with Light, who lived
in strict poverty and celibacy, wandering and preaching, and hearers,
or laity, bound by somewhat less rigid rules requiring fasting and con¬
fession and forbidding any kind of killing, fraud, or lies. By metem¬
psychosis a hearer could hope for future rebirth as an Elect.38
Manichaeism spread rapidly and widely throughout Asia and the
Roman Empire, flourishing in the Empire until the sixth century, and
leaving traces in the East until the tenth century, despite condemnation
and persecution by Christians, Persians, and Moslems. The horror and
alarm it aroused among orthodox Christians was so great, the publicity
given to it by the powerful refutations of St. Augustine (who in his youth
had been a Manichaean) was so widespread, that afterward whenever a
churchman was confronted by heresy the epithet likely to spring to his
lips first was “Manichaean.”39
Dualism did not disappear with the waning of active Marcionite and
Manichaean communities, but we will pass over the numerous minor
groups within and outside the Gnostic movement in the second and
third centuries and will comment only briefly on the major sects which
revived or continued dualist concepts.
In the fourth century the Messalians, who inhabited regions around
Edessa and in Armenia, expressed essentially Gnostic ideas in a form
Historical Sketch 13
which emphasized evangelical practices. For them, Satan was a son of
the First Principle. He rebelled in pride and after his fall created the
material world in which men are confined. Release comes when, through
constant prayer, the believer replaces the demonic spirit in his body with
the Holy Spirit.40 At the other extreme of the Roman Empire, in Spain,
also in the fourth century, Priscillian (d. 385) combined the ideals of
monastic asceticism with astrological lore and certain dualistic ideas
which are not clearly known but which may owe something to Gnostic
influence. Priscillian was put to death as a magician by the Roman
emperor. His doctrines were not formally condemned by the Church
until the sixth century, after which they seem to have left little trace
except in books.41
The Paulicians42 of the seventh century (there are other lesser dualist
groups, chiefly in Asia Minor,43 which we do not mention) might detain
us longer if our knowledge of their doctrines were not so cloudy and
disputed. The sect apparently originated in Armenia in the sixth cen¬
tury and spread into the eastern Byzantine Empire in about a.d. 640.
Its followers formed a group of warriors in the borderland between the
Byzantine Empire and the Arabs, harassing the Empire and in turn
attacked by it, until they were repressed and scattered late in the ninth
century. Thereafter, some of them were transferred to the Balkans,
where their existence as a sect of some notoriety and influence was re¬
ported as late as the twelfth century. In Armenia they lingered even
longer. Western crusaders probably picked up the name “Paulician” as
the equivalent of “heretic” from Byzantine usage, and their version of
the word, “Publican,” became a common epithet for heretics in the
twelfth century in the West.44
The history of the Paulicians is clearer than their doctrines, which
“must remain largely a matter of conjecture.”45 Among various, some¬
times conflicting, reports are these: that they believed in two independent
principles or deities, that they considered Christ to be a man adopted by
God and filled with the Holy Spirit, and that they rejected the Old and
some of the New Testament, repudiated Christian sacraments, and
practiced a vigorous iconoclasm. There are, in fact, two major groups
of sources, Greek and Armenian, which present rather different views
of the Paulicians. The Greek writers represent them as dualists, teaching
a docetic interpretation of Christ (that his body was celestial substance);
the Armenian sources depict them as adoptionists, who accepted the
14 Introduction
unity of God, attributed all creation to him, and denied the divinity of
Christ. Both groups of sources emphasize the iconoclasm of the sect.46
The greatest of the Balkan heresies and the one which was to have the
most influence on the heresies of medieval Europe was that of the
Bogomils, which made its appearance in Bulgaria in the tenth century.47
South Slavs, who moved into Bulgaria in the sixth century as tillers of
the soil, had been followed by Bulgar conquerors; this created a society
of peasants and aristocrats in which Slavonic language and culture
prevailed, while a once-free peasantry was subjected to a regime of
oppression. The Bulgar aristocracy, Slavicized by the tenth century, also
copied Byzantine manners. Bulgaria became a land of uneasy internal
stresses and was frequently at war with the Byzantine Empire. In the
second half of the tenth century, Kievan Russia was drawn into these
conflicts, and half of Bulgaria was conquered by the Empire.48
In matters of religion there were also many complexities in Bulgaria.
The original paganism of the Slav peasantry had been diluted by Roman
and Eastern Orthodox missionaries. Although the Bulgarian ruler be¬
came a convert to the Orthodox Church in 864 or 865, his brief flirtation
with the Roman papacy thereafter added to controversies surviving from
earlier missionary competition. As the official Bulgarian church fell
deeper into the Byzantine pattern of Christianity, its hold on the
peasantry weakened, while the reluctance of Byzantine patriarchs to
allow Bulgarian religious autonomy promoted a kind of religious
nationalism in return.49 This and the worsening conditions of life no
doubt abetted the proliferation of monasteries in the mid-tenth century.
Moreover, there were Jews, Syrians, and Armenians in Bulgaria as a
result of colonization by the Byzantine emperors, and among the
Armenians were Paulician heretics. The Messalian sect was also re¬
ported to exist, together with the Manichaeans,50 although the latter
term was not much more than a generic name for heretics by that time.51
In short, Bulgaria in the tenth century seems to have displayed every
influence which has been alleged as a direct or contributory cause of
heresy.
It was in the second quarter of the tenth century that a priest named
Bogomil, meaning “beloved of God,” or “worthy of God’s pity,” or
“one who entreats God,”52 began to preach in Macedonia.53 In reaction
against turmoil, misery, and oppression, Bogomil taught a life of peni¬
tence, prayer, wandering, and simple worship, in order to escape a
Historical Sketch 15
world which was evil by nature. His message is known only from the
words of indignant opponents, especially a priest named Cosmas (fl. ca.
972);54 but there is no doubt that Bogomil attributed the wickedness of
the visible world to its creator, the devil, who was the rebellious elder
son of God. Bogomil’s dualism, then, was not “absolute”—that is, it did
not stem from a concept of two independent principles and creations—
but was “moderate,” or “mitigated,” in that the evil creator was regarded
as inferior to God.
In Bogomil belief, the lord of this world was the author of the Old
Testament and the Mosaic Law. God sent his younger son, Christ,55 on
a divine mission to redeem the souls of men, but except in appearance
he never became man, and he worked no real miracles. The Virgin Mary
deserves no reverence as his mother. Only the New Testament, espe¬
cially the Gospels, could be credited as the word of God. The sacraments
were rejected, as was all the customary ritual of the Church: feast days,
icons, veneration of the Cross or of the saints, the liturgy, ecclesiastical
vestments. The only Bogomil prayer was the Lord’s Prayer, frequently
repeated. Their ethical teaching demanded a renunciation of the world
to avoid contamination from evil. Meat and wine were forbidden, and
marriage was discouraged to avoid propagation of the devil’s work. The
existing hierarchy of the Church had no authority over them, and even
obedience to civil rulers was disparaged. The Bogomils were beginning
to divide themselves into two classes—the Perfect, who lived according
to the strictest asceticism, and the believers, who were not bound to this
rigorous discipline—but it is not assured that in the early years they
regarded themselves as a separate church.58
Some of Bogomil’s teaching (the doctrine of the two sons of God, the
use only of the Lord’s Prayer, and theories about how the soul was
introduced into Adam’s body) seems to have been original, while other
elements in it might have been adopted from the Messalians or Pauli-
cians;57 the question is debatable. The ethical content of Bogomilism
conceivably could have arisen spontaneously from concentration on the
New Testament and from the fervent desire to achieve apostolic purity
and simplicity.58
Catastrophic wars in the last quarter of the tenth century, and the
final conquest of Bulgaria by the Empire in 1018, no doubt gave
impetus to the Bogomil instinct to withdraw from the world, but at the
same time the Byzantine victory facilitated the spread of the heresy to
 16 Introduction
other parts of the Empire, especially to Constantinople. Under the
influence of Byzantine theological speculation, Bogomilism was trans¬
formed from an ethical teaching, tinged with dualism, and appealing
especially to the peasantry, into a doctrinal and speculative philosophy
with a coherent system, one which was readily acceptable to the upper
classes in Constantinople. The growth of Bogomilism there caused alarm
and resulted in vigorous persecution about 1110 and again after 1143,
which weakened the sect in the city but spread it into Asia Minor and
westward and northward into Dalmatia and Bosnia.50 During these
years, the Bogomils developed religious communities or “churches” with
a well-developed ritual. There was now a clear distinction between the
Perfect and the believers. The former achieved their status by baptism
of the Holy Spirit, effected when those who were already baptized placed
their hands on the believer while the Gospel of John was held over his
head, thus making him a member of the true Church.00 To buttress and
illustrate their original doctrines the Bogomils also made wide use of
apocryphal literature.61
Of equal importance was schism within the sect. At some point,
probably in the eleventh century, and perhaps as a result of Byzantine
theological speculation, the moderate, or mitigated, dualism of the early
Bogomils, teaching one God, Father and Creator of all, but allotting to
the devil as a fallen being a subordinate role as maker of what was
visible and evil, was challenged by an absolute or radical dualism, in
which the principles of good and evil were held to be coequal, coeternal,
each a creator omnipotent within his own realm. Scholars do not agree
whether this absolute dualism developed within Bogomilism or was
adopted from earlier sects. It has, indeed, been suggested that mod¬
erate dualism is a Christian heresy but that absolute dualism is another
religion entirely. Yet both schools of thought adopted the same manner
of life and a similar organization of their sects. Those who gave the evil
principle equal status with the good formed the Chrurch or “order” of
Dragovitsa—the name apparently comes from a region in Thrace—
while the Bogomils who still held to moderate dualism called themselves
the Church of Bulgaria.62 Both groups sent out offshoots into Serbia,
Bosnia, and Dalmatia, and ultimately sent missionaries to Western
Europe.68
Such missionary activity continued, and in the second Bulgarian
empire, after 1218, the Bogomils prospered. In Bosnia, where they were
Historical Sketch 17
commonly called Patarines, Bogomilism became a state religion, with
doctrines comparable to the moderate dualism of the Bulgarian order.
In the fourteenth century some decline in its vitality under the attacks
of Roman Catholic missionaries was already evident. Then in Bosnia,
as earlier in Bulgaria, conquest by the Turks brought about the end of
Bogomilism as a major cult.84
The chief reason for reviewing the earlier dualist sects, as has been
said, is that many historians argue or assume that ancient dualism passed
successively from Manichaean and Gnostic origins through other groups
over the centuries to become eventually the Catharism of the Middle
Ages; hence the use of the term “Neo-Manichaean” for the medieval
sect.65 A recent statement by Steven Runciman argues for a “tradition”
of dualism stemming from the Gnostics and the Manichaeans in two
streams, one through the Paulicians, another through the Messalians,
which join again in the Bogomils of the Balkans and thus continue to
the Patarines of Bosnia and the Cathars of Europe. Other historians
differ in their interpretation of how dualism was transmitted, so that
among those who insist on deriving Cathar doctrines from the doctrines
of earlier sects there is no consensus in identifying the line of descent.
The basic reason for insisting that connections do exist is the similarity
of later sects to earlier ones, despite an intervening span of many years.66
Yet rather important differences are discernible between the Manichae¬
ans and other Gnostics, between Gnostics and Messalians, Paulicians,
and Bogomils. A more serious difficulty is that for none of the sects
that have been discussed is an uninterrupted line of succession demon¬
strable from concrete historical evidence. These sects apparently did not
form a continuous chain over a thousand years. Similar characteristics
may suggest, but cannot prove, direct historical relationships when there
are gaps of one or more centuries between the sects which are compared.
In books and in the memories of men who hated and feared it, a heresy
might have a longer life than its real existence, thereby creating mis¬
leading testimony about its survival.
Dmitri Obolensky admits that the way in which Manichaean doctrines
were transmitted in the Near East between the third and seventh cen-
*

turies cannot be precisely determined, although he insists on the prob¬

ability that they were passed down until they “found a new and powerful
expression in Paulicianism.”67 Yet Nina Garsoian categorically denies
that the available evidence permits a conclusion that the Paulicians
18 Introduction
were exponents of Manichaean ideas.88 Hans Soderberg thinks it un¬
likely that there was contact between Messalians and Bogomils and
argues for a Gnostic tradition outside of the sects usually named.69 Even
the nature of the relationship between Paulicians and Bogomils in the
Balkans is not explained with precision. Other difficulties are raised by
historians who can see little essential similarity between ancient Man-
ichaeism and medieval Catharism.70 The theory that after the sixth
century the embers of Manichaeism smoldered in Africa and the western
Mediterranean lands until they were fanned into flame again in the
twelfth century is also afflicted by lack of historical evidence,71 as is the
explanation that Priscillianism survived to inspire Catharism.72 With the
present state of the evidence, then, many hypotheses are possible, but
none is entirely satisfactory.
For the proposition that the Bogomils of Bulgaria and Constantinople
were closely connected with the Cathars of Western Europe, the evi¬
dence is more convincing, although details are in dispute. In a thoughtful
review, Henri Puech73 canvassed the various theories of Bogomil-
Paulician-Cathar relationships, showing their diversities.74 What Puech
regards as demonstrable beyond doubt is that the Bogomils did have a
decisive influence on the Cathars, for although some of the latter’s traits
could have come from non-Bogomil sources or have been independently
developed, there are others (selective acceptance of books of the Bible
and apocryphal works; explanation of the devil’s role; customs of
fasting, prayer, and baptism) which are too close to Bogomilism to be
thought coincidental.75 But when did Bogomilism make its impact on
the West? Whether it came before the middle of the twelfth century
—Puech thinks not76—is a question which will be examined presently
in these pages.
Is it not possible that the kind of dualism which is inherent in
Christian thought could have been re-emphasized in Western Europe in
the Middle Ages, quite independently of outside influences? None of the
historians who have asserted the transmission of a dualist tradition over
the centuries has ignored the consideration that under different circum¬
stances, expressions of dualism will differ and the sects embodying them
will have their own individuality. Emile G. Leonard, whom Puech
quotes, has some pertinent observations. Some solutions of religious
problems, he remarks, may be spontaneously reinvented at different
times. The innovators may then assume a place in a movement of which
Historical Sketch 19
they were not originally a part, thus acquiring a fictitious genealogy;
Leonard believes that in this way Western heretics acquired Manichaean
doctrines at the hands of a Bogomil missionary in the twelfth century.77
Arno Borst made a related point, that dualism “is not the product of a
historic tradition but of a rebellion against the world.” It appears, he
wrote, when there is a conflict of spiritual or political forces which
shakes minds out of their equanimity. “The nature of dualism changes
according to the circumstances of time and place,” and sects arise from
various causes. Only after the religious experiences develop into dogma
does the tradition become important.78 Borst applies this judgment to
the Bogomil-Cathar relationship, finding that the later sect had close
affinities with the earlier, from which it took its belief in dualism. “But
Bogomils and Cathars are not identical. . . . Dogmas, scriptures, mis¬
sionaries may have come from the East, but from the beginning of our
millennium heresy in the West follows its own laws.”79
In a recent work Jeffrey Russell argues that Western conditions
alone, after the eighth century, explain the origins of Western heresy.80
Norman Cantor, in a general survey of medieval religious experience,
suggests that it was quite possible for a dualist theology to develop out
of Neo-Platonist philosophy and that Catharism may be the result of a
combination of antisacerdotalism with Neo-Platonism.81
Thus, it is possible to conceive of an independently developed kind of
dualism, native to the West, inherent in the antithesis between spirit and
matter, God and mammon, which the Christian tradition has always
sheltered, and which appeals to minds sensitive to the discrepancy
between what is and what ought to be. In the view of this writer, in
fact, whatever dualism existed in the medieval heresies before the twelfth
century was of just such an indigenous nature, and although foreign
influences—like those from the Bogomils—might have made a limited
impression by suggesting ideas or practices, neither were they the basic
cause of heretical dissent nor, in the eleventh century, did they funda¬
mentally affect its expression. Then, in the efflorescence of piety in the
twelfth century, ideas carried westward from the Balkans by mission¬
aries, merchants, or crusaders returning home gave definition and formal
structure to some of the already existing dissenting groups and produced
the Catharist heresy, strongly influenced but not created by the importa¬
tions from the East.
20 Introduction
THE RISE OF MEDIEVAL SECTS

Early Appearances of Heresy in the West

Religious disaffection and charges of heresy were by no means un¬
known in medieval Europe before the eleventh century, especially after
St. Boniface began his apostolate. It is probable that some of the
influences which would produce the great heresies of the High Middle
Ages were already at work.82 But it is only for the late tenth century and
more clearly for the eleventh that the sources offer enough detail to be
of profit in a volume of translations. At that time there appeared at
widely scattered places in Western Europe groups of persons who put
themselves in opposition to some of the dogmas or practices of the
Church and devoted themselves to a way of life which religious or
secular authority found damnable. Heresy was detected at Ravenna
about a.d. 970, in the diocese of Chalons-sur-Marne in France about
the year 1000, thereafter in Aquitaine, then among the scholars at
Orleans in 1022, among workers or peasants in Arras about 1025, again
in Italy, at Monforte near Milan, about 1028. About two decades later
heretics were found again in Chalons and in Goslar, Germany. There
were also imprecise statements about their appearance in Italy at large,
in Spain, and in the domains of the French king.88
Whether there were links among the groups of dissenters is a moot
question. There were reports of persons who carried heresy northward
from Italy as far as Arras, or from one place to another in France.
Merchants and pilgrims as well as missionaries are supposed to have
been the agents who disseminated the doctrines. About the social status
of those who were involved in the various sects generalizations are
hazardous. In one place or another all levels of society were rep¬
resented.84
What gave rise to the charges of heresy against these persons were
varying combinations of ascetic practices, anticlerical attitudes, and
rejection of the services and authority of the clergy.85 Most frequent are
reports that the sectaries rejected the institution of marriage and put an
undue stress on virginity and chastity, and that they abstained from
certain foods, especially meat Refusal to venerate the Cross is several
times mentioned. The traditional form of baptism was abandoned by
some, in favor of a ceremony of imposition of hands; and sometimes the
other sacraments were spurned. The authority of the Old Testament was
Historical Sketch 21
disputed. The heretics were variously charged with denying the Trinity,
refusing veneration of saints, rejecting all the hierarchy, institutions, and
liturgy of the Church, denying the need for church buildings, and re¬
fusing to pay tithes.
The sense of alarm among clergy and princes was shared by lesser
folk and was no doubt sharpened for all by the stories which rumor
supplied of secret assemblies, demon-worship, magic, and lewd behavior.
Reaction by the authorities varied. Their tendency to speak of “Man-
ichaeans” or “Arians” is probably best explained by the notoriety of
those ancient sects.86 The bishops took the lead in attempting to dis¬
cover the character of the offenders. When the counsel and correction
offered to the accused was rejected, the clergy left the disposition of the
recalcitrants to the secular arm.87 Indeed, kings on occasion took the
lead in the prosecution. Men like Bishop Wazo of Liege and his bio¬
grapher, both of whom spoke out for toleration, were rare.
On the surface, the records of the eleventh century reveal a desire to
practice a simple Christianity, stripped of some of its traditional institu¬
tions and sacramental practices, basing itself on the Gospels, and em¬
phasizing puritanical standards for personal behavior. Behind it may lie
the dualism which contrasts spiritual needs with desires of the flesh,
Gospel ideals with actual practice. But is that all? Does not the influence
of Bogomilism on the origins of eleventh century dissent also appear?
The question has been debated by Father Antoine Dondaine, O.P., one
of the foremost historians of medieval heresy, and Professor Raffaello
Morghen, historian of medieval Christianity. In his Medioevo cristiano,
published in 1951,88 the latter restated conclusions expressed some years
before: that the heretical movements of the early eleventh century were
primarily moral in character, growing out of the nascent religious
sentiments which would also support the great movement of reform
within the Church. The sources of heretical ideas, he insisted, were to
be found in aspirations to a pure and simple faith, inspired by the
Scriptures among humble elements of society. There could be no ques¬
tion of Manichaean origins, for there was no evidence of the transmission
of Mani’s teaching over the centuries; Manichaean dualism had been
cosmological and metaphysical; the dualism of the eleventh century was
anthropological and ethical. The heretics were not theologians, but
simple people condemning a worldly priesthood out of zeal for a purer
evangelistic Christian life.
22 Introduction
Morghen’s thesis was challenged by Dondaine, whose own views had
altered over the years since 1939, when he had doubted the supposed
filiation from Manichaeism, questioning the amount of Manichaean
teaching found among the Cathars, and suggesting that Gnostic influ¬
ences might have been more important.89 In 1950, he was more certain
that Catharism came from the Balkans but was not willing to admit that
it existed in Western Europe in the eleventh century, only that there may
have been some Bogomil penetration.90 In 1952, however, in an article
criticizing Morghen’s Medioevo cristiano, Dondaine categorically as¬
serted that Bogomil missionary activity was responsible for the earliest
appearances of heresy in the West.91 He maintained that comparison of
the eleventh-century Western heresies with Bogomil doctrine described
in the treatise of Cosmas92 showed such close similarities as to prove
that the apparently isolated heresies of the eleventh century were linked
together by a common origin in Bogomilism. Catharism did adapt itself
to Western conditions thereafter, Dondaine wrote, but the contempo¬
raries who called the eleventh-century heretics “Manichaeans” were
right. The Cathars were the heirs of the Bogomils, who were the heirs
of the Manichaeans.
After some replies from Professor Morghen, reaffirming and expand¬
ing his point of view, had been published,93 Henri Puech intervened in
the dialogue in 1956, with the discussion of Bogomil-Cathar relation¬
ships to which we have already referred.94 He could not accept Don-
daine’s proofs of Bogomil impact in the eleventh century and he agreed
with Morghen that ascetic and spiritual impulses account for the kind
of dualism then displayed. But, Puech concluded, Bogomilism did
eventually have a real effect on Western dualism, so much so that
Catharism can be said to have existed only after Bogomil influence had
given organization and theology to unorthodox ideas already in exist¬
ence. That occurred about the middle of the twelfth century.95 Probably
the last word has not been said in this amiable scholarly discussion, but
until further documentary evidence can be produced from Balkan or
European research, continued dispute would not be very profitable. At
the moment, however, it seems difficult to find fault with Puech’s
conclusions.
Whatever the inspiration of the heretics in the earlier years of the
eleventh century, it apparently ceased to produce marked results, for
evidence of popular heresy disappears from the sources for the next
Historical Sketch 23
fifty years. The epithet “heretic” was hurled back and forth in the
scholars’ controversy over the theories of Berengar of Tours on the
Eucharist, and was used by both sides in the great struggle over the
papal program of reform in the days of Gregory VII, but there were no
reports of the kind of heresies noticed earlier. However, two incidents
which show the tendency to see heresy in reforming movements may be
mentioned. In an attempt to reform the Church in Milan, the papacy
found allies in a group of citizens who rebelled against the feudal-
hierarchical domination of the archbishop. Their primary program was
to require clerical celibacy and to put an end to simony.86 Landulf the
Elder, the chronicler of these events in Milan, attempted to link the
followers of the Pataria (the reform party) with the heretics of Monforte,
but, in view of the support given to the former by the pope, the accusa¬
tion carries little weight.97 Again, in Cambrai in 1076 a man named
Ramihrdus, who was apprehended by the bishop as a heretic, seems to
have been guilty of no more than enthusiastically sponsoring the pro¬
posals of the papal reform, for inquiries could find no fault in him about
the articles of faith. But when Ramihrdus accused the bishop and clergy
of simony, in their eyes he stood guilty of heresy.98
Various reasons have been advanced for the silence of the sources
about heresy in the second half of the eleventh century. There is the
suggestion that the success of oppressive measures forced heresy to move
underground and to adopt tactics of unobtrusive propaganda.99 Or it
may be that the great events of the conflict between Church and state,
followed by the crusades, diverted attention from the small, isolated
groups of dissidents.100 More persuasive is the explanation of Arno
Borst, that heretics disappear from the sources because heretical dissent
waned sharply, because the emphasis that the heretics had put on
personal purity and asceticism, on spiritual as opposed to material values,
was absorbed in and more powerfully expressed by the Cluny-Gorze
movement of monastic renovation and the Gregorian reform. Attitudes
that had been called heretical in earlier years would have ceased to
prompt criticism because the same motives and aims were taken over
by other movements in Christian society.101

Wandering Preachers and the Apostolic Life in the Twelfth Century

From the beginning of the twelfth century, heresy moved forward on
the European scene. The narrative of occurrences in the following pages
24 Introduction
is keyed to the documents which have been translated in this volume and
follows the sequence in which they are arranged. Ideally, heresy should
be discussed within the full context of medieval life. Here we attempt
only to recount various incidents in the rise of heresy and to note aspects
of the contemporary reaction to it. For full interpretation the reader
must refer to general histories of the period or to special studies of the
sects in their contemporary settings.102
Between 1100 and 1120 heretical movements swirled around domi¬
nant personalities, chief among them Tanchelm in the Low Countries;103
Henry, so called of Lausanne, active first at Le Mans and then in regions
to the south;104 and Peter of Bruys, in the area near the mouth of the
Rhone, where he and Henry joined forces briefly.105 Near Soissons and
Trier sects appeared,106 then vanished, at least from the sources. By the
fifth decade of the century, of the earlier leaders only Henry was still
alive to become the unfortunate object of the attention of St. Bernard,
but by that time the eccentric Eudo was troubling Brittany,107 Arnold
♦

of Brescia moved through dramatic events in Rome,108 and warnings of

4-

danger were heard/from Cologne, Perigueux, and Liege.109 The last

three places were scenes of very significant events; there the sect of the
Cathars first appeared, its organization and dogma then taking form.
Certain characteristics of the heresies of this half-century—leaving
the Cathars aside for the moment—are salient. Individuals played a
central role. The leaders often were clerics, monks, or canons. Laymen,
too, were leaders in their own right, or grouped themselves about the
heresiarchs as lieutenants and disciples. The followers were no longer
isolated and localized groups but made up a popular movement over
wide areas. There is little evidence to show that they drew apart in
distinctive communities or sects at this time. Interrelationships of dogma
among the heresiarchs are not obvious, for it was less theology than
religious practice that was in question, yet it is quite clear that the state
of mind of these dissident preachers and their hearers was much the
same everywhere. They were unanimous in denying that the existing
Church met their demands for religious life and leadership. The need
for church buildings and consecrated cemeteries was brought in question;
tithes were refused; and Peter of Bruys was notorious for denouncing
veneration of the Cross. Tanchelm and Henry are said to have declared
that only their followers were true Christians. The efficacy of the sacra¬
ments, the heretics insisted, depended on the worth of the ministrant,
Historical Sketch 25
and almost without exception the various groups held that the function
of the clergy of their day was invalidated by moral unworthiness—
Arnold of Brescia’s slashing attacks on the hierarchy and clergy were
the most extreme examples of this view. Peter of Bruys and the heretics
near Trier explicitly denied transubstantiation. Virtually all rejected
infant baptism. Henry taught that there was no need to confess to
priests. On marriage there was not so much unanimity, however. The
group near Soissons was said to reject it entirely. Henry encouraged his
adherents at Le Mans to marry, but neither then nor later did he regard
marriage as sacramental. Heretics at Cologne approved of marriage
only between virgins. Prayers and the efficacy of works for the dead,
several reports indicate, were denied; the heretics of Cologne taught that
there was no purgatory.
The elements common to all of these diverse leaders and followers
were the radical and far-reaching conclusions that they drew from two
basic assumptions: that the apostolic life is the truly Christian life, and
that the duty of men and women to practice it and to preach repentance
is fundamental.110 The heresies of the twelfth century were stimulated
by the renovation of religious ideas produced by the reform program in
the Church in the preceding century, and especially by the appeal to the
example of the apostles. Precepts of the Gospels and the narrative of the
early Church in the Acts of the Apostles have repeatedly been a re¬
juvenating and disturbing force in Christianity, never more potently
than in the Middle Ages; one need only mention three saints from three
centuries—Peter Damiani, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Francis of Assisi.
In a great many ordinary men and women the New Testament awoke
comparable ardor. Church reformers had focused pious sentiments on
the imitation of the apostles by lives in which penitence outwardly ex¬
pressed the inward search for grace, communal association fostered
brotherly love, and poverty exalted the spiritual over the material. To
penitence, brotherhood, and poverty, add the necessity of preaching in
order to reach all men with the renewed gospel. This was the vita
apostolica, a key element in the transformation of twelfth-century re¬
ligious orders, in the rise of associations of lay brothers, in the renewal
of asceticism, in puritanism and religious enthusiasm. It brought forward
new advocates of itinerant evangelism. It also led to new heresies.
The apostolic impulse is discernible in the heresies of the early
eleventh century but its impact on those of the twelfth century is far
26 Introduction

better attested. The anticlericalism which accompanied it, ironically

enough owes something to the eleventh-century papal reform program.
In its more radical phase, the Gregorian reform had revived the Donatist
assertion that only a truly moral clergy could effectively mediate be¬
tween God and man. Gregory VII withdrew from the stand that the life
of the ministrant can affect the sacrament, but not before a great many
people had heard the message that bad priests were to be avoided. Now,
in the outburst of enthusiasm for the apostolic life, pious opinion re¬
quired of the clergy something approaching the rigor and asceticism of
the monastery, and when this was not in evidence, it often turned against
them. At their most extreme, critics of an immoral clergy declared that
ordination could give no power that was not nullified by impure life. In
the place of an ineffective clergy and invalid sacraments, heretical
leaders offered their own example and precepts; and the evidence they
gave, in deed as well as word, of their devotion to the apostolic ideal
had potent attraction.

The Rise of the Cathars

The first solid evidence of a “new heresy”—as it was called by an
observer—one that was to outdo all others in challenging the orthodox
Church, comes from Cologne in 1143.111 There, side by side with the
reformers who have already been mentioned, but easily distinguished
from them, were found persons who claimed, because they followed the
apostolic tradition, to constitute the only true church. They were, in
their own words, “apostles, Christ’s poor,” owning nothing, laboring
only for daily sustenance, divorced from the world by their perseverance
in prayer and fasting. They abhorred marriage, spurned milk and foods
born of coition, replaced the Catholic sacraments with their own rites
of blessing bread at meals and baptism by the imposition of hands. Their
church, they said, was world-wide, having persisted in Greece and other
lands from the days of the apostles. In Cologne they were led by a bishop
and his assistant and when examined by the clergy were defended by
their own theologians. The report of the discussion contains no mention
of dualism, but there need be no hesitation in identifying them as
Cathars,112 although contemporaries did not yet know the name.112
Evidence of the existence of similar groups was not long in coming.
At Liege, a group of heretics said to have come from France, rejected
the sacraments and claimed to be the only true church.114 About the
Historical Sketch 27
same time, from Perigueux came a shrill warning about “apostolics” who
fasted and prayed constantly and added to the Lord’s Prayer a doxology
not found in the Vulgate version of Matthew, but common in Greek and
Slavonic Bibles. Popular report, moreover, made wonder-workers of the
heretics.115 Clear-cut statements that dualism was taught by the heretics
of Liege and Perigueux is lacking, but most of the evidence points to the
conclusion that they were Cathars.
How had the new heresy reached the Rhineland and been so widely
dispersed elsewhere? One suggested answer is that the persecution of
Bogomils in Constantinople in 1143118 accelerated a dispersion already
stimulated by their missionary spirit. More than a century later, an
inquisitor would recount how heresy spread from Bulgaria to Constan¬
tinople, thence to Bosnia, and soon afterward, by the medium of re¬
turning crusaders, to France.117 Christine Thouzellier has reconstructed
a sequence of events from that narrative and other evidence. She sup¬
poses Bogomil influence to have been felt in the eleventh century and
to have manifested itself again at Soissons (1114), Montwimers (before
1145), and Liege (1135, 1143). Perhaps the first crusaders had made
contact with heretics in the East and carried back some of their ideas.
At any rate, Bogomil influence had produced a church of mitigated
dualists in Cologne by 1143. The prosecutions of that year did not
exterminate them, and Germans returning in 1149 from the Second
Crusade reinvigorated the heresy and precipitated a crisis of dogma, for
they had made contact in Constantinople with the absolute-dualist
doctrines of the Dragovitsan order. The latter won out in the Rhineland
and Germany within twenty years. Meanwhile, other returning crusaders
had also carried the modified dualism of the Bulgarian Bogomils into
northern France and created a center there, with its own bishop, from
which missionaries pushed southward into Aquitaine and Italy. The
result, Mile Thouzellier concludes, was that this new influence from the
Balkans canalized various movements, gave existing groups greater
doctrinal unity, and provided heretical nuclei in southern France and
northern Italy from which the Cathars would grow rapidly.118
Whatever the cosmological or metaphysical doctrines that were being
purveyed in these middle years of the century, they seem to have been
less important in the popular reception of the new heresy than the
humility, poverty, abstinence, and prayer which the Cathars practiced.
Most Catholic sources of this period, in fact, are silent on the question
28 Introduction

of dualism, apart from the use of the epithet “Manichaean.” It may be

that the missionaries and heresiarchs were careful not to reveal their full
doctrine until the reliability of converts was thoroughly established,119
or that the bishops who examined prisoners were put off by evasive
answers and did not press their questions hard enough. Among the
people who heard the Cathars preach and who were attracted to their
company, surely the heretics’ great appeal was to the now fully awak¬
ened sentiments of piety. The ground had been prepared by the wander¬
ing preachers and the radical reformers; now upon it strode the Cathars.
None were humbler; none were more assiduous in prayer, more constant
under persecution; none made more insistent claims to be “good
men”;120 and it was on those terms that they were received by many of
the common people.
As for the orthodox reaction, the procedure for dealing with alleged
heretics was not yet regularized. Suspects were interrogated by bishops
or abbots with attendant clergy, or sometimes by a specially convened
council.121 Doubt about appropriate penalties often affected the delibera¬
tions, and in most cases when the accused died, it was as a result of
mob action.122 What was more evident was the sense of alarm among
churchmen and the impulse to publicize the dangers by letters and
sermons. To the region of Toulouse, which was already becoming
notorious for heresy, the first special preaching mission was led by St.
Bernard,123 in an attempt to win back disaffected people by persuasion,
an attempt which the Church would repeat later without notable
success.
THE SPREAD OF HERESY

The six decades after 1150 were the great age of growth of medieval
heresy. All the currents already in motion ran faster and deeper, some
converging, some finding new channels. Motives of ecclesiastical reform,
evangelism, personal piety, and poverty were restated; a scathing attack
on the hierarchy continued in the vein of Arnold of Brescia, while other
critics rejected the clergy as vigorously on other grounds. In the bur¬
geoning towns, groups such as the Humiliati came together to express
their piety in simple lives of labor and preaching. Other nonconformists
spoke of returning to the rigid law and observances of the Old Testa¬
ment. Apocalyptic teachings were heard and with some pantheistic
additions were popularized by a little group in the vicinity of Paris.
Historical Sketch, 29

Many sects of which only the names or briefest mention survive sprang
up. And everywhere the Cathars spread, meeting savage repression in
the North, but winning so much support in southern France that they
threatened to replace the Church in the loyalties of nobles and towns¬
men. They had almost as much influence in the cities of northern Italy.
This survey will touch on the development of heretical sects in this
period in three geographical areas: Italy, southern France, and northern
Europe. If such a scheme occasionally requires some repetition, it has
also the merit of pointing up differences among heretical movements.
Heresies spread throughout Europe but not even the greatest of them
was homogeneous or monolithic, for in different areas varying emphases,
different tenets and forms of organization came into being. The met¬
aphor which might be used to describe this phenomenon is not of a
river confined to one great channel but of a delta, where a dozen chan¬
nels diverge.

Reform Movements and Catharism in Italy

In so far as social unrest could encourage dissenting religious opin¬
ions, the Lombard and Tuscan towns were well prepared for heretical
propaganda. Opposition to the German emperor, papal-imperial strife
and the ensuing schism of the papacy, internal party divisions along
these lines or based on economic or class interests, and the desire for
municipal independence revived the tradition of the Pataria and raised
the perennial questions of ecclesiastical morality and reform.124
In the decade after 1170 the harvest of heresies ripened in Italy. No
doubt the conflict between the vested interests of the clergy and the
economic ambitions of the townsmen of Piacenza did its part to embitter
Hugo Speroni, a jurist of that city, toward the clergy. The ideas he
formulated grew out of his concept of predestination, in which salvation
was the lot only of those who, by the foreordination of God, possessed
an inner holiness, a state attainable by no act of their own. In con- 4

sequence Speroni denied the validity of sacraments and all other visible
acts of piety. He rejected the priesthood, because he insisted that priests
were bound by sin, that they defiled rather than sanctified whatever they
touched. How much of a following Speroni collected in Piacenza and
how long they survived as a sect is not known. Speronists yet were
condemned in 1184, and were still important enough to be denounced
by a Catholic writer in Piacenza in 1235. The name continued to occur
30 Introduction

regularly in official pronouncements for the remainder of the century.125

The Humiliati constituted a sect that grew out of the reactions of
pious consciences to conditions of economic change in Italian towns. In
1179—the date is most probable but not absolutely verified—Alexander
III received an appeal from some communities of urban laborers, who
asked his approval of their honest and humble customs. Without giving
up family life, they wished to live as a community, wearing plain garb
as a mark of their piety, putting an absolute ban on lies, oaths, and liti¬
gation, and spreading the Gospel among themselves and to others by
preaching. The pope applauded all these propositions, except that of
preaching. This he forbade, and when the prohibition was ignored, the
Humiliati were excommunicated as heretics in 1184. Some of them made
common cause with the Waldenses, who were then beginning their
missionary work in Italy. Later, Innocent III was able to recall others
to the Church by allowing them to continue their chosen way of life
under clerical supervision.128
The sect of “Lombards,” which Arnold of Brescia is said to have
organized before his death, seems not to have continued under that
name. By 1184 a group called the Arnoldists, after their supposed
originator, was restating the teaching of the rebellious reformer. They
held that prelates and priests were entirely unworthy to represent the
Church of Jesus Christ, to administer the sacraments, or to impose
ecclesiastical discipline. For them the test of the true Christian was
profession of the poverty of the apostles, and they considered that lay¬
men in that state had full right to preach the Gospel. They did not
concern themselves with doctrinal or philosophical speculations; anti¬
sacerdotalism was the paramount theme. Condemned in 1184 with the
Speronists and Humiliati, and like the latter making common cause with
the Waldenses, the Arnoldists continued to be mentioned as a separate
sect in edicts and bulls of condemnation long afterward.127
Somewhat of an anomaly were the Passagians, whose time and place
of origin are only imprecisely known. An insistence on observing all the
laws of the Old Testament, including circumcision, was joined in this
sect to a rejection of the divinity of Christ and to a denial of the Trinity.
Most of the sacramental services of the Church they regarded as human
inventions which deserved no respect.128
The existence in Italy of various sects which cherished some single
heretical idea was attested by the Franciscan inquisitor Stephen of
Historical Sketch 31
Bourbon on the evidence of a Waldensian he had interrogated. There
were the “Tortolani,” who took the Eucharist only from their own
Perfect leader once a year; the “Rebaptizati,” who performed a new
baptism for adults; the “Communiati,” who practiced community of
«

goods; and the “Josephini” (named with no statement of their doc¬

trines).129 Most of these can probably be classed among the reformers,
but the greatest expression of the motives of evangelism and reform in
Italy came through the growth there of the Waldenses, or Poor of
Lyons.
To postpone for the moment the story of the origin of the Poor of
Lyons, it may be noted that members of the sect made a first impression
in Italy in 1179 or soon thereafter. Insisting on the right of laymen to
preach, emphasizing holy poverty, reading the Gospel in the vernacular,
and criticizing the Catholic clergy, they drew into their ranks many of
the Arnoldists and the Humiliati. The last-named, however, were de¬
dicated to communal lives of labor, while the Poor of Lyons were
committed entirely to poverty and itinerant preaching. This difference,
combined with disagreements that arose about organization and about
the propriety of accepting the sacraments from the orthodox clergy,
culminated in schism in 1205 and the Italian Waldenses broke away
from the Poor of Lyons, adopting the name “Poor Lombards.” Further
dissension over the consecration of the Eucharist in turn split the Poor
Lombards and gave occasion for some of them to return to the
Church.130 Before that, as the Poor of Lyons had done from the be¬
ginning, the Poor Lombards were attacking the Cathars vigorously while
defending their own way of life as superior to that permitted by the
orthodox Church.
Even before the sects which have just been mentioned had made their
appearance, the heresy of the Cathars, soon to be heresy par excellence
to orthodox contemporaries, had been quietly established in Italy.181 It
was probably between 1150 and 1160 and probably from the Cathar
community in northern France that missionaries first came to make
converts among people of humble station in Lombardy and Tuscany
and set them to preaching to and converting others. Their numbers grew
so rapidly that soon the Cathars were being blamed for a chief share in
the perennial political and ecclesiastical troubles of the Italian cities.
Meanwhile, among themselves, disputes over doctrine revealed the
influence of missionaries from the Bogomil churches in Constantinople
32 Introduction

and Bulgaria. The first Cathars in Italy accepted the modified dualism
then prevalent to the north. But in the decade 1160-1170, emissaries
from Constantinople made contact with them, preaching the doctrines
of absolute dualism, and producing problems of dogma which were
accentuated by the importance placed on baptism by imposition of
hands. By this act, which soon came to be called the consolamentum in
the West, the soul was cleansed of sin, but only if the ministrants them-
»

selves were sinless. Moreover, used to confirm bishops and their assist¬
ants in office, the consolamentum passed on the tradition of the church
or “order.”132 Thus serious crises of conscience could arise if there were
uncertainty either about the personal purity of the participants or the
legitimacy of the doctrinal tradition of the church which they repre¬
sented.
A mission from Constantinople, about 1165, won over most Italian
Cathars to absolute dualism, as was to be the case presently in southern
France. But further problems arose in Italy when Bulgarian mitigated-
dualist missionaries came in their turn. Conflicting opinions about the
validity of the consolamentum, abetted no doubt by personal ambitions
and regional rivalries, had by about 1190 splintered the Italian Cathars
into six churches, to which was added another, composed of migrants
from France.183 There were, however, no clear geographical lines
dividing the churches or bishoprics. These all quarreled with each other,
and in the thirteenth century doctrinal questions further divided the two
most important groups. It was at about the time of the first schisms that
Italian Cathars, visiting various Balkan areas to validate their consecra¬
tion through a new consolamentum, brought back some apocryphal
books used by the Bogomils which became popular also in the West.134
While disagreement divided the Cathars into rival factions, Catholic
authorities began to display alarm about the heresy in Italy. A chronicler
of much later date wrote that as early as 1163, the Emperor Frederick
Barbarossa had noticed large numbers of heretics in Milan.135 Between
1167 and 1176, Archbishop Galdinus preached against the Cathars
there,136 as did the bishops of Orvieto and Florence in their own dio¬
ceses.137 Soon the kind of information which allowed Catholics to under¬
stand the nature oi the heresy more clearly and which increased their
horror and indignation at it began to become available. One of the first
examples of this was the confession of a convert from Catharism named
JBonacursus, in Milan. Other hands soon added to his statement various
Historical Sketch 33

materials gleaned from the Scriptures which could be used to refute the
teachings of the Cathars, then rounded this out with similar compilations
to be used against the Passagians and Amoldists.138 The inner com¬
plexities of the Cathar churches, however, did not become clear to
observers for some time, and more than half a century later inquisitors
were still attempting to explain them.139
Until 1184, action to check or repress heresy in Italy was the affair
of bishops in the areas affected. The Third Later an Council of 1179,
which discussed heresy, had its eyes focused on southern France,140 but
heretics of Italy got their full share of attention from the papal see when
Lucius III and the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa meeting at Verona
in 1184 jointly condemned and proscribed the sects of Cathars, Pat-
arines, Humiliati, Poor of Lyons, Passagians, Josephini, and Arnoldists.
The papal bull Ad abolendam also prescribed penalties for heretical
clerics and laymen and established a procedure of systematic inquisition
by bishops.141 Succeeding popes followed this with pronouncements
about heresy in specific areas, Rimini, Ferrara, Modena, and Prato,
among others.142
It was Innocent III (1198-1216) who pressed papal action to wider
limits. From the moment he came to the Chair of Peter, Innocent dis¬
patched a stream of letters about heresy to archbishops, bishops, secular
rulers, and municipal governments, and sent legates to work on the spot.
He saw the basic necessity, reform of the Church, as the first require¬
ment; he urged, cajoled, and threatened, in attempts to correct unsavory
situations. Italy was not the scene of preaching missions against heresy
or of a crusade, which was, as we shall see, visited upon southern
France; but all the other papal programs were pressed there. In the
cities specific measures were ordered; legates worked at recruiting the
cooperation of secular governments, and drew up statutes against heresy
to be enforced by them. At the papal court, converts who returned to
the Church from the Humiliati and the Waldensian societies were
greeted with warmth and favor. In 1215, the Fourth Later an Council
summed up and reaffirmed the pontifical legislation already in existence.
In its first canon, the council provided a statement of doctrine based on
traditional professions of faith, but amended to take account of present
heresies. The third canon specified procedures against heretics and
their accomplices and reproduced, among other provisions, the Ad
abolendam of Lucius III. Several other canons touched on the matter
34 Introduction

of heresy in various ways. Although the council’s attention was fixed

primarily on the situation in southern France, the legislation was equally
pertinent to Italy where, by the time of Innocent’s death, the Church
was mobilizing its forces against heresy and lacked only the papal
inquisition, for which the precedents were already being established.143

Waldenses and Cathars in Southern France

In southern France, more particularly in the domain nominally ruled
by the counts of Toulouse—which soon would come to be called
Languedoc, land of the southern dialect—heresy put down its firmest
roots in the twelfth century. Religious dissent had been chronic there
since the eleventh century. The Church, by admission of its own
members, was often wanting, for although the Gregorian reform and the
revitalizing effect of the Cistercian movement had been felt, a vital
element, support of the established Church by the nobility, did not
exist. Spokesmen for the Cathars found a ready hearing, as did the
itinerant preachers of the Poor of Lyons. Both sects prospered, even
while quarreling with each other, until the situation became so notorious
as to prompt intervention, sponsored by the papacy and supported by
the Capetian king, who had claim to feudal overlordship of the affected
regions.144 The two sects will be discussed separately below; this should
not obscure the fact that they existed side by side—although not in
amity—and ultimately were the joint object of repressive measures.
The only heresy of the Middle Ages that has survived as an organized
church in modern times is that which began with the preaching of
Waldes of Lyons.145 Sometime about 1170, Waldes, a merchant of that
city, underwent a religious experience most appropriately likened to
that which affected Francis of Assisi a little later, one that led him to
rid himself of his wealth and his family and to appear in the streets
with urgent appeals to his fellow citizens to repent.146 Disciples gathered,
and the reformer sought papal approval for their preaching and the
practice of holy poverty. As with the Humiliati, the pope approved the
piety but not the preaching. Returning to Lyons, Waldes was required
to prove his orthodoxy by a profession of faith, to which he added the
statement of his intent to live by the rule of the Gospels in poverty and
obedience to authority. When despite the archbishop’s prohibition he
continued to preach, the Poor of Lyons, as they now called themselves,
Historical Sketch 35
were expelled from the city, and in 1184 they were included among the
sects excommunicated by Lucius III. The Poor of Lyons spread south¬
ward, where the legacy of Peter of Bruys and Henry was theirs to collect.
Within a decade or so they were disclaiming any obedience to the
Roman clergy, arguing that any worthy layman could preach and
perform the sacraments, and challenging the judicial powers of secular
authority. At the same time, they stoutly attacked their more numerous
contemporaries, the Cathars, so that churchmen who were well enough
informed carefully distinguished between the two sects and regarded the
Poor of Lyons as the lesser evil.
It has already been noted that in Italy, the Poor of Lyons had picked
up adherents from existing groups inclined to antisacerdotalism and to
the concept of a church purified by poverty. After the break between the
Poor of Lyons and the Poor Lombards in 1205, the latter’s influence
crossed the Alps into southern Germany and the Rhine valley. Attempts
to reunite these groups were to be made, but without success.147
The names applied to the Cathars in Europe varied from place to
place. Of the names based on the regions or towns in which the heretics
were established, none became more widely known than “Albigenses,”148
derived from the town of Albi, in or near which probably the first
Cathar bishopric in southern France was established.149 The heretics
were by no means confined to that area, and it was actually in and
around Toulouse that the Catholic clergy were first aroused to resist
them. A conference between prelates and heretics at Lombers in 1165
revealed the inability of the orthodox hierarchy to take effective meas¬
ures. How little the heretics were perturbed appears from their con¬
vening shortly afterward at Saint-Felix-de-Caraman, a village outside
Toulouse, to discuss doctrinal and organizational affairs. There Nicheta,
the emissary of absolute dualists in Constantinople who had already left
his stamp on the Italian Cathars, won over to absolute dualism the
representatives from northern France and Languedoc. At this heretical
council also new bishoprics were created, to supplement those already
established in northern France and at Albi.150 The Albigenses thus
acquired an administrative structure and doctrinal unity unknown
among the Cathars in Italy, although modified dualism was not left
without its partisans among them.
Heresy and politics were intermingled in Languedoc even more
36 Introduction

closely than in the Italian cities, because so many of the nobility were
either receptive to the doctrines or eager to see local prelates lose
secular influence and power. Aware that his territories were notorious
for heresy, Count Raymond V of Toulouse found it expedient to demon¬
strate his orthodox sentiments. At his instigation, in 1178 a mission of
prelates, reminiscent of St. Bernard’s visit in 1145, came to Toulouse
to investigate and to preach. Their chief accomplishment was to success¬
fully prosecute a wealthy merchant who was reputed to be a heresiarch
(although there is, in fact, no documentary evidence that he was a
Cathar). They also encountered two spokesmen for the heretics, who
defended themselves as entirely orthodox until they were shouted down
by members of the audience, who accused them of teaching the doctrine
of two gods and of utterly repudiating the Church.151
No doubt this experience influenced the legislation adopted by the
Third Lateran Council in 1179, but neither that nor an abortive crusade
in 1181 was effective in checking the spread of heresy.152 Cathars were
welcomed in the courts of nobles, moved unmolested in the streets,
debated with Catholic bishops and Waldensian spokesmen. The Catholic
clergy was too indolent, too infected with heretical views in some cases,
and too much hampered by public opinion, which favored the heretics,
to be able to counteract their influence. However, some sporadic activi¬
ties by churchmen began to produce valuable information about the
heresies and when this was published abroad, it intensified the concern
of the Church. By the year 1200 the main lines of Catharist and Wal¬
densian teaching and the extent of their defection from the Church were
known, but the question of what to do about it still remained.
It was during the pontificate of Innocent III that real countermeasures
to heresy were first devised for Languedoc. Through papal legates, the
pontiff first sought to reform the Church in Languedoc from the top
down and to persuade the nobility to cooperate against the heretics.153
In 1204, he sponsored a campaign of counterpropaganda through the
preaching of Cistercian monks, which was given vigorous assistance in
1206 when Diego, bishop of Osma, and his companion, Dominic,
joined the legates in Languedoc.154 Out of the preaching campaign of
1206-1208 were born preaching orders, first the short-lived Poor
Catholics, then the more prominent and permanent Order of Preachers,
founded by Dominic.
In 1207, a conference of Catholics and heretics at Pamiers induced
Historical Sketch 37

some Waldenses, notably Durand of Huesca, to return to the Church.

Durand and a few companions then persuaded Innocent III to allow
them to form a society in which they would continue certain pious
practices current among the Waldenses but profess full orthodoxy in
doctrine, be obedient to the papacy, and dedicate themselves to un¬
remitting preaching against heresy. Under the name of Poor Catholics,15*
they were active for several decades, and during their brief life they
produced some very important pieces of antiheretical literature.156 A
companion group recruited primarily from among the Lombard Poor
also appeared but was equally short-lived.
Far more important were the mendicant friars which succeeded these
first preaching societies. The Dominican and Franciscan orders157 are
outside the limits of this survey; however, it must be noted that the
purpose “to root out the corruption of heresy, to drive out vice, to teach
%

the creed and inculcate in men sound morals,” expressed when the
Dominicans were being formed,158 was important to both orders, which
were effective agents against heresy not only because of their preaching
and because they furnished inquisitors for the new tribunal of the In¬
quisition, but even more because they helped to satisfy within the
Church the insistent popular pressure for piety and morality in daily life.
Legatine missions which carried out papal policies against heresy
have been briefly referred to. We must also pass quickly over the
history of the Albigensian Crusade. Innocent III had broached the plan
of using force against heretics and their protectors in earlier years, but
in 1208 the murder of a papal legate, a crime laid at the door of Count
Raymond VI of Toulouse, hardened Innocent’s resolution. A summons
to northern nobles brought a crusading army into Languedoc in 1209.
Twenty years later, after intermittent warfare, although Languedoc was
not crushed, the power of the counts of Toulouse had been much re¬
duced, numbers of the lesser southern nobility had been killed or dis¬
inherited, and the intervention of the French king had shown the folly
of further armed conflict. The ravages on the brilliant culture of the
south were severe, but heresy was by no means extirpated.159 Some of
the nobility continued, as best they could, to shelter heretics; the devo¬
tion of a large proportion of the populace to the Catharist Perfect had
not been seriously weakened; thus new methods had to be devised for
continuing the struggle against infidelity. The chief of them was the
papal Inquisition.
38 Introduction
Heresy in Northern Europe
As has been said, Cathars had been found in Cologne in 1143. It
may be surmised that from there the heresy spread into Flanders, at the
same time that it was pushing into Aquitaine and Italy from some
center in northern France; but neither the Cathars nor any of the other
popular heresies of the twelfth century won wide support in northern
Europe (which, for our purposes, we take to be the area north of a line
drawn along the valley of the Loire east to the Rhine, and including the
Rhineland, Flanders, France, and England). Not that this region was
free of heresy, but the prosecution which was pushed more vigorously
in the north than elsewhere seems to have kept the sects subdued and
relatively isolated. The records are less precise about doctrines than
those available for Languedoc or Italy; there are no confessions of
converts, and we hear more of punishments than of beliefs. Dualist
ideas were present, but in most cases it is impossible to be specific
about the exact character of the heresy reported.
The first mention of heretics in this period forthrightly calls them
Manichaeans. The first canon of the Council of Rheims (1157)160 makes
clear the exasperation the prelates felt: Slippery Manichaeans, they
declared, hide among the innocent folk, especially among weavers who
move from place to place and change their names. Although they
condemn marriage, they are accompanied by wicked women. The
council prescribed severe penalties, imprisonment or worse, for the
heresiarchs; followers were to have their faces branded and be exiled.!C*
In 1163, a small group of heretics was apprehended at Cologne. When
they refused to recant after interrogation, they were handed over to the
secular officials to be burned. Writing after the event, Eckbert, a monk
of Schonau who claimed experience in debate with heretics, described
their errors in thirteen sermons which constitute a polemical tract.162 He
calls the heretics “Cathars,” or “Piphles,” or “weavers,” and declares
that they rejected marriage and infant baptism or any baptism in water,
spurned the Eucharist, and denied purgatory. They refused to eat meat.
Christ, they said, had only seemed to assume flesh, and the souls of
men were apostate angels. Not all the heretics known to Eckbert were
of one mind; he mentions the followers of one Hartuvinus, who ap¬
proved the marriage of virgins,163 a tenet reminiscent of the reformers
described by Eberwin. Eckbert’s insistence on seeing in the heretics of
Cologne the Manichaeans of St. Augustine’s day may have colored his
description.
Historical Sketch 39

It was in the decade of the sixties that the Rhineland and Flanders
constituted a center from which heresy radiated. In 1162 a group of
townsmen of Flanders were prosecuted as Manichaeans or Publicans
by the archbishop of Rheims. They unsuccessfully offered him a large
bribe for release, then appealed to the pope, with unknown results.164 A
cleric, Jonas, was at about this time convicted of the heresy of the
Cathars but seems to have gone free,185 being more fortunate in that
than another man, Robert, who was burned at Arras in 1172 after
being convicted by the ordeal of hot iron.166 From Flanders or the
Rhineland, between 1160 and 1166, a group of thirty or so heretics
made their way to England, where they were detected and savagely
punished by the king for rejecting the sacraments.167 In 1167, a group
at Vezelay suffered a like fate for the same offense.168
Wherever heretics were detected in following years prosecution con¬
tinued, but few details of their belief are preserved in the reports. The
old stories of devil-worship and lewd assemblies were revived, and tales
of magical prowess derived from the powers of darkness are a common¬
place in the reports.169 Heresy was chronic in the diocese of Auxerre as
the thirteenth century began. Bishop Hugh attacked it there, and, when
the Albigensian Crusade began, a number of prosecutions elsewhere
were in progress.170 From time to time papal assistance or advice was
asked for, but usually the local authorities acted vigorously and ruth¬
lessly in prosecution. Not until the very end of the century were the
Waldenses noticed, however. Then, in Metz, some of them who had
come from Montpellier, treated the bishop disrespectfully—but without
immediate reprisal—and probably attracted a group of sympathizers by
their encouragement of Bible-reading in the vernacular.171
Prompt and effective action was taken in response to a new kind of
heresy discovered in Paris in 1210. For some years, the prophecies and
apocalyptic teachings of Joachim of Flora, in Calabria, had been taken
up here and there. Especially popular was his doctrine of three ages or
dispensations in history: those of the Father, of Christ, and of the Holy
Spirit. The third of these was generally thought to be about to begin
in the thirteenth century, after which the perfect glory of the Spirit
would bring the world to a new kind of perfection.172 The Amalricians,
followers of Amalric of Bena (d. ca. 1206), a master of arts at the
University of Paris, combined Joachim’s ideas with pantheism in a sect
whose devotees declared themselves to be so imbued with the Holy
40 Introduction

Spirit that no act of theirs could be sin, nor for them were any sacra¬
ments necessary. This heresy was exposed by an “undercover agent” and
the sect, which had begun to attract some followers in adjacent dioceses,
was promptly broken up by the execution or imprisonment of its
leaders.173 The apocalyptical and pantheistic elements in it, however,
were to recur repeatedly in the next three centuries, especially among
the Brethren of the Free Spirit.174

Sects of the Later Middle Ages

In the first three or four decades of the thirteenth century the great
medieval heresies of the Cathars and Waldenses had reached their peak.
Crusaders cruelly ravaged Languedoc, but the hold of heresy on the
people was not easily broken and its proponents were still capable of
effective propaganda,175 although they moved less openly than before.
It was not until the number of the Perfect was reduced by a combination
of military action and judicial procedures, and the persistent pursuit by
the Inquisition made life difficult for their sympathizers, that Catharism
began to wane seriously.176 In retrospect one can see that by the third
quarter of the century, the Albigenses were clearly doomed.177 In Italian
cities the political situation gave Catharism greater security, and it
retained its vitality there for decades after it was dying out elsewhere.178
This meant that heretics could travel between Languedoc and Italy,
protected and guided by sympathizers, to find shelter with their co¬
religionists for a time.179
The Waldenses expanded during the first half of the century, across
the Pyrenees from southern France and from Italy and Germany east¬
ward toward Bohemia.180 They were the target of inquisitorial attention
equally with the Cathars but were perhaps less easily recognized or
better able to work quietly in humble levels of society and so to escape
notice. At any rate, they survived over ensuing centuries and in 1532
made common cause with Protestantism.181 Of other sects, little can be
said with certainty. The names of the Passagians, Humiliati, Arnoldists,
Amalricians, and others still appeared in edicts of condemnation, but
it is likely that these sects lost effective existence, absorbed by other
movements, or dwindling to obscurity.
Although some of the earlier sects waned or completely disappeared
in the thirteenth century, the fundamental causes of heresy were still
present and continued to find outlets in religious activities beyond the
Historical Sketch 41

limits of orthodoxy. Communities of religious men, and more fre¬

quently of women, called Beghards and Beguines, were forming in
Europe in the mid-thirteenth century whose aim was to live in chastity
and by labor under proper ecclesiastical guidance, yet heterodox notions
could find a home among them and they were sometimes harassed by
suspicious prelates.188 Apocalyptic preaching and the inspiration of a
“free spirit” repeatedly animated individuals and groups.183 Apostolic
poverty became an issue which split the Franciscan order early in the
fourteenth century. Some of the radical faction, the Spirituals, were
burned as heretics, but they left behind lay followers who tried to
perpetuate their teachings.184 In short, in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries doctrinal criticism, spiritual discontent, and extravagant or
unorthodox expressions of piety would continue to appear, in old and
new forms.185
After about 1250, however, in the literature on heresy, the most
important theihe is not the rise of heresies but their suppression, which
reflects the increased scope of efforts by Church and state. The papacy
had recruited the cooperation of monarchs, with the result that legisla¬
tion by Louis VIII of France, James I of Aragon, and the Emperor
Frederick II was added to that by popes and councils and the statutes
urged on the cities by papal legates.186 By 1250, the papal inquisition
had regularized and expanded its procedures of search, examination,
and condemnation.187 Now the testimony of witnesses, which was care¬
fully recorded and indexed, began to provide abundant information
about heretical ideas and customs.188 To promote more efficient oper¬
ation, inquisitors compiled manuals of procedure and model interrog¬
atories,189 and summarized what they had learned about heretical
doctrines for the benefit of their colleagues.190 Tracts of this sort drew
some of their information about the heresies from earlier polemical
works but are often valuable sources in their own right.191 The trans¬
lations of orthodox sources in this volume end with one such inquisi¬
torial manual of the early fourteenth century.

ORGANIZATION AND DOCTRINE OF THE MEDIEVAL SECTS

The Cathars
A great many names were used by orthodox Christianity to designate
the dualist heretics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The name
42 Introduction

“Cathars” came into use after 1163,192 but the heretics themselves, from
their earliest appearance, preferred to be called “Christians” or “Good
Men,” a name restricted of course to the Perfect, who were also called
the “Elect” or “Consoled.”193 The earlier designations of heretics as
“Arians” or “Manichaeans” continued to be used by Catholic writers,
on the assumption that the Cathars were direct descendants of the early
sects.194 Some authors attempted to establish a genealogy of heresy, in
which many individuals and sects of the past were named.195 One
thirteenth-century controversialist also calls the Cathars “Marcionites.”196
As the Cathars multiplied, spread, and divided, and as knowledge of
them increased, these generic names yielded to others without being
entirely replaced. In northern Europe the name “Publicans,” an adapta¬
tion of “Paulicians,” of whose heresy crusaders had heard in the East,197
was popular. “Patarine” was also used in the twelfth century in northern
Europe but not as commonly as it was in Italy.198 In France, the name
“Bulgars” (in the vernacular “Bougres”) showed an awareness of the
connection with the Balkans.199 But by the early thirteenth century
“Albigenses” had become by far the most common name.
In Italy, “Patarines” and “Cathars” were used interchangeably after
1179, perhaps showing a recollection of the eleventh-century Milanese
reform movement. The appearance of factions among the Cathars also
produced special names for each of the resulting churches, names which
might be derived from Balkan affiliations, from the name of a bishop,
or the place in which a bishopric was established.200 The mitigated
dualists who sent their bishop to Bulgaria for confirmation were called
“Bulgars,” but this name soon was supplemented by “Garatenses,”
which derived from the name of a first bishop and persisted among the
heretics themselves. By the middle of the thirteenth century, Catholic
writers were more commonly calling them “Concorezzenses,” after an
Italian town not far from Milan.201 Their vigorous rivals, absolute
dualists, occasionally were called “Drugunthians” (a derivative of
“Dragovitsa,” the seat of Balkan absolute dualism), but more commonly
were known as “the sect of Desenzano” (an Italian village) or “Alba-
nenses,” the name which they preferred. The last may be derived from
either a person or a village.202 A third group, holding somewhat of a
middle position doctrinally, were first called “Slavs” or “Sclavini” from
their connection with Bosnian Bogomils, or “Caloianni” after their first
bishop. These names were superseded in the thirteenth century by
Historical Sketch 43
“Bagnolenses,” adapted from the name of a village.203
Three other groups of Italian Cathars which came into existence as
a result of the twelfth-century doctrinal disputes had names based on
the regions where they were established: the sect of the March of
Treviso or of Vicenza; that of Tuscany or Florence; that of the Spoletan
Valley.204 Finally, French immigrants were known in Italy as “those of
France,” or “Francigene.”205
Cathars regarded themselves as the true Church of God, which over
the centuries had preserved the teachings of Christ and the baptism that
he had given to the disciples. The Church was in the lives of its mem¬
bers; nothing man-made of wood or stone had a part. True Christians
obeyed the “law of life,” guarding themselves from all the impurities
Christ had warned against, and shunning other persons who refused to
believe. Like Christ’s, their lot in the world was persecution and martyr¬
dom. As a church, then, the Cathars set themselves in forthright opposi¬
tion to the Roman Catholic organization, which, being of this world, in
their eyes represented the prince of this world, the devil.208
Christ had granted to his Church the power to forgive sins through
prayer and baptism in the ceremony by which one entered the company
of true Christians, a baptism in the Holy Spirit. It could be received
only by those who had faith, and thus was denied, generally but not
invariably, to children. Baptism, called the consolamentum, brought
forgiveness of the great sin which the soul had incurred in its fall from
heaven, and a return of the guiding spirit which had then been lost; no
other work had that efficacy. To baptize in water was to use the
material of the very world from which the soul must be freed. The rite
of the consolamentum was a simple one, having, in fact, considerable
likeness to baptism in the early Church.207 How it survived or was re¬
created is not now known, although the Cathars surely obtained its
chief features from the Bogomils. First the initiate underwent a time of
testing and instruction, enduring the ascetic discipline which would be
required of him after baptism, and being instructed in the doctrines
which he would teach and defend to the death. When ready, he was
presented in a two-part ceremony to the Perfect, those who had already
been baptized. At his first appearance, the believer received the right
and power to say the Lord’s Prayer with proper understanding.208 The
actual consolamentum might be deferred for a time, but normally it
followed immediately. In that ceremony, after a discourse from the
44 Introduction

ministrant, the postulant requested baptism and promised to maintain it

unsullied, after which the Perfect laid their hands upon him while the
ministrant held the Gospels over his head, repeated certain ceremonial
invocations, and read seventeen verses from the first chapter of the
Gospel of John.209
The man or woman thus made perfect, thereafter undertook a life of
severest austerity, in which any indulgence of the flesh was forbidden
and even sinful thoughts were to be eschewed. Any physical contact
between men and women was forbidden. Dietary discipline forbade the
use of meat, milk, eggs, or cheese at any time. On certain days each
week and for three forty-day periods each year even stricter fasting was
required.210 Perfected Cathars thus constituted a picked group who
pursued a life unendurable by ordinary men and women; hence baptism
was usually postponed by believers until the approach of death, when
the consolamentum could be conferred in an abbreviated ritual. If the
invalid subsequently recovered, a period of probation and a second
consolamentum might be required. In their earlier days, the perfected
Cathars donned a black robe at baptism; when persecution made dis¬
tinctive garb dangerous, this was replaced by a thread or a cord worn
next to the skin by the heretic.211 The practice of endura, suicide by
starvation after receiving the consolamentum, in order to prevent re¬
contamination of the soul, has often been commented on. It seems,
however, to have been a relatively late development and probably has
been more emphasized than is warranted by actual Catharist practice.212
Although in theory the consolamentum made one perfect, it might be
repeated. In the early days of the Cathars, those who shifted allegiance
from one group to another were “reconsoled.” Officials were confirmed
by imposition of hands. Also, those who sinned after baptism had to be
reconsoled after suitable penitential fasting.213 And finally, since the
purity of the ministrant was of overriding importance, the consola¬
mentum might require repetition if doubt arose as to the qualifications
of the one who first imposed it. At least, that is what Catholic sources
tell us; in the sources which survive, the heretics say nothing on this
matter.
Cathar ecclesiastical organization was not complicated, but we risk
confusion if we understand the terms “church” and “bishop” in the sense
that they are used in orthodox terminology. After about 1167, the
dualists of Languedoc were for the most part absolute-dualist in
Historical Sketch 45
doctrine; the continued presence of some mitigated dualists did not
create the internal controversies known in Italy. In Languedoc adminis¬
tration was by bishops, whose administrative areas followed the lines of
Catholic dioceses, so that one spoke of the Albigensian church, or the
church of Toulouse, or that of Carcassonne. In Italy, the distinction
between churches was also between the orders of dualism but no
geographic lines of episcopal authority were fixed. The various groups
intermingled, although one might have preponderance in a certain area
and the seat of the bishop might be in a particular town or village.
Each community elected a bishop, who had primacy among his
equals, the other Perfect. Also elected were an “elder son” and a
“younger son” (the Latin terms are maior and minor and have nothing
to do with age). They would succeed to the bishop’s office when he died
or was deposed for some cause. Schism within a sect could of course
upset that orderly succession. The bishop and the sons combined
spiritual and administrative leadership but in no exclusive sense, for all
Cathars had the power to give the consolamentum and were under an
obligation to preach and teach. The most numerous officials were the
deacons, who were charged with the conduct of hospices for the Perfect,
where shelter was offered to travelers of the faith and where believers
underwent the period of prebaptismal probation. The deacons also
exercised pastoral care over the believers of their town or region and
presided over the monthly confessional service; and among their num¬
ber, no doubt, were found the “wise ones” especially qualified to defend
their faith and debate with opponents.214
People among whom the Perfect moved and who accepted their
teaching as true doctrine attached themselves to the Perfect as
“believers.” Living fully in the world, the believers supported the
Perfect with gifts, sheltered them, guided them from place to place,
protected them from persecution when they could,215 and attended their
various religious ceremonies. When it became dangerous for the heretics
to congregate in public, their meetings might take place in any sort of
gathering place.216 Believers were welcome at the daily worship services
and at the monthly confession of venial sins by the Perfect; they might
also witness the consolamentum of one who was being initiated as a
Perfect, whether he intended to devote his life to that vocation or, as
was much more common, was being baptized only on his deathbed.
These occasions were concluded with a kiss of peace among all partici-
46 Introduction

pants and onlookers.217 Believers frequently shared in the ceremony

of breaking bread at meals.218 Whenever a believer encountered a
Perfect they exchanged a ritual greeting, the melioramentum, in which
the believer, bowing deeply and repeatedly, asked for a blessing and for
a prayer that he might end his life in the sect. The Perfect responded
with a short prayer. (The same salutation was exchanged between
Perfect, except that they prayed to remain in God’s service.) Catholic
observers, somewhat misinterpreting the nature of this exchange, called
it “adoration.”219 In effect, the melioramentum was an engagement by
the believer to seek baptism before he died. By mid-thirteenth century
this promise was called the covenensa or convenentia220 and had a
formal nature, allowing the believer to be consoled even if he had lost
the power of speech.
There is no doubt at all that the life of the perfected Cathars was one
of most rigorous asceticism. Their worst enemies admitted that this was
true, even while they insisted that it was a hypocritical surface morality
adopted to cloak their secret vices. But because the consolamentum
cleansed one of sin and because it was normally postponed to the last
hours of life, it has been asserted that Cathar believers, in expectation
of final forgiveness by the one act, would disregard ordinary rules of
morality. Contemporary polemicists represented the Perfect as regretting
that they had not tasted more of worldly pleasures before their baptism,
and modern authors have concluded that acceptance of Cathar teaching
threatened to break the moral bonds of society by promoting indiffer¬
ence to spiritual truth and freedom from any constraint on appetites of
the flesh.221 Yet it is not easy to reconcile the moral and ethical teaching
of the Cathars222 and their reproach of the luxury and laxity of the
Catholic clergy with the assertion that they condoned gross immorality
among their followers. Certainly, intensity of belief and observance of
moral laws would have varied among the followers of the Cathars, as
among all men. It seems reasonable to suppose that some would have
been guilty of improper behavior. But, if we are right in thinking that
much of the appeal of the Catharist teachers came from the demonstra¬
tion of their own personal piety, it seems equally reasonable to suppose
that there would have been incentives for their believers to follow their
example as far as they were able. Furthermore, in assessing the charges
of immorality among Catharist believers, one must recall that the moral
code taught by the Church was more strict than the ordinary practice in
Historical Sketch 47

feudal society, for example in the matter of relationships between the

sexes, and it is possible that what was not at all uncommon in everyday
life was used as an example of depravity when observed among the
followers of the heretics.223
The doctrines of thirteenth-century Catharism were much the same
in the various splinter groups, but there were some crucial differences,
the most important being that between mitigated (or “modified” or
“monarchian”) and absolute dualism.224 The former, as has been said,
was the original teaching in Western Europe, as it probably had been
among the Bogomils. For these Cathars, there was a single God, Father
of all, Creator of a spiritual universe. But one of his creatures, or his son
Lucifer, rebelled in heaven through pride and was cast out. With God’s
permission, Lucifer in his exile divided the then undifferentiated ele¬
ments and from them constructed the visible world. Therein he placed
the bodies of the first man and woman, imprisoning in Adam an angel
of the good God. The souls of humans were either spirits derived from
the first prisoner, spirits bom of spirit as flesh is of flesh, or souls which
had already been created and were introduced into new human bodies
as the bodies were produced. God wished to save his fallen angels, and
through Christ provided the message of salvation: Accept baptism, reject
the wicked world, do penance until the death of the body and the final
release of the spirit. Those who did not attain purification in one life
might pass, by metempsychosis, from body to body, even through
animals. At the final judgment day, the good would be separated from
the evil.
Since all the visible world was considered the devil’s work, the miti¬
gated dualists rejected the Old Testament as the record of his deeds.
They disagreed, however, on how to interpret the prophets who had
foretold the coming of Christ and seemed to speak the will of the good
God. John the Baptist was regarded as an agent of the devil, a view
which was being modified in the mid-thirteenth century toward accept¬
ance of him as a good man.
The absolute dualists, on the other hand, began with the premise that
there were two principles or gods, one good and one evil, each of whom
created his own universe in which he was all-powerful but was none¬
theless subject to some interference from the adversary. The son of the
evil principle—Lucifer—secretly made his way into the heaven of the
good God, where he rose to be a steward over angels and seduced some
48 Introduction

of them from their divine allegiance. A battle ensued in heaven in

which Lucifer and his allies were expelled. Here enters the doctrine of
a triple composition of angels: The angelic creatures had body, soul,
and spirit. After the Fall the bodies remained like dry bones in heaven,
the souls became the prisoners of the devil on earth, while the spirits
which had been their guides and preceptors lost contact with them.
Christ came to save the fallen angelic souls imprisoned in human bodies,
but the events of his life, death, and resurrection took place in another
world, superior to this earth, which is hell. Some Cathars held that
Christ had never appeared here except spiritually in the body of Paul.
Souls might pass from one material body to another, until through the
consolamentum they were forgiven the great sin of rebellion in heaven
and brought again under the guidance of their heavenly spirits, after
which they would wait in a “land of the living” for the time to rejoin
the highest heaven. Then good and evil creations would again stand
separate. Since this was foreordained, the concept of a final day of
judgment had no foundation. The absolute dualists also agreed that the
God of the Old Testament was the evil principle, but were willing to
accept a considerable part of the book, especially the prophets.
Teachings about Christ differed not only between the absolute and
mitigated schools of dualism but also from group to group within the
latter. For absolute dualists, Christ was an angel who came into the
world through the body of another angel, Mary. He never put on real
human flesh nor had real contact with the evil material creation. For
some mitigated dualists, Christ, Mary, and John the Evangelist were all
angels. Others admitted that Mary was a woman and that Christ had
taken real human flesh from her. Still others said that he put on a body
which was human in appearance but composed of a substance different
from that of men.225
Within each school of dualism there were varying interpretations of
other dogmas, and early in the thirteenth century some Catharist
theologians caused further dissension within Italian groups. Among the
Concorezzenses, who were mitigated dualists, Desiderius, an elder son,
taught for a time certain doctrines which approached orthodox Chris¬
tianity: for example, that Christ really performed miracles and had a
truly human body in which he actually died and rose again.226 Among
the Albanenses, absolute dualists, John of Lugio, also an elder son,
developed his own interpretation of the absolute opposition of the good
Historical Sketch 49

and evil principles and their realms, which were eternal. Creation, then,
could mean only a change in the mode of existence, as from good to
better. In the creatures of the good God there could be no free will
because all things existed within his knowledge and could not be other¬
wise. John accepted the whole Bible as a true record of events which
took place in a higher world created by the good God.227 An important
treatise, The Book of the Two Principles (translated in No. 59), pre¬
serves the defense of John of Lugio’s system and his attacks on other
Catharist groups.
In many ways, however, especially in the appearance they presented
to the world, all Cathars agreed. They were united in rejecting the
orthodox sacraments as worthless, the institutions of the Church as
unsound, and its authority as without foundation. All followed the same
ascetic regimen. They eschewed oaths and denied the right of the
secular power to punish them. The devil was considered the prince of
this world, and all its natural phenomena were his work. All Cathars
used the same form of the consolamentum and repeated the Lord’s
Prayer with additions uncommon in Roman Catholic usage.
How are the Cathars to be interpreted? It is not unusual today to
find Catharism characterized as a “sick” religion, promoting individual
and collective suicide out of a profound pessimism. Yet in the surviving
Catharist literature one searches in vain for expressions more morbid
than the expectation of suffering in the world, as Christ had suffered.
It has been said that success for the Cathars would have meant the
dissolution of morality among men, would have spread anarchy and
destroyed Western civilization. On the other hand, a group of modern
partisans see in the Cathars a profound spirituality, and regard the
world as poorer for their passing out of it. Was Catharism a rebellion
against Roman Christianity or was it an alien religion? Contemporary
descriptions so emphasize the rejection of the Church that they may
obscure the positive elements of a faith capable of inspiring many
martyrs.
If we could observe the Catharist Perfect through the eyes of a lay¬
man of their time, unversed in the niceties of dogma, we might be
impressed by their appearance as zealous followers of Christ: the
Gospels were their guide for conduct; their celibacy and their austerities
were those of the monastic ideal; their criticism of the orthodox clergy
was hardly more severe than that characteristic of other puritans and
50 Introduction

reformers; their disdain for the material world was rivaled by that of
anchorites whose sanctity was revered by the Church. To this extent the
Cathars were formed by the Western world of the Middle Ages.
Yet in fully developed Catharist dogma there are elements strange to
the main currents of Western religious development, because the influ¬
ence of Bogomilist cosmology in the mid-twelfth century led the Cathars
beyond the essentially Christian asceticism of the earlier period to a total
rejection of this world. And to reject the world entirely was to abandon
the hope of transforming human life in this world, which is the basis of
Christian evangelism. The extreme dualist doctrine was never adequately
fused with the apostolic ideal. To the extent that these two elements—
metaphysical rejection of the world and popular yearning to seek spir¬
itual values in the world—remained unreconciled, Catharism as a
system was weakened. Lacking a hierarchical unity, the Cathars never
succeeded in harmonizing theology and cosmology with the popular
piety out of which their movement grew. They were the products and
the victims of the age-old desire to pursue a spiritual life in a world
which places great difficulties in the way. In pursuit of purity they went
beyond reform to rejection, refusing any compromise between spirit and
flesh, good and evil, heavenly perfection and an imperfect world.228

The Waldenses
In the sources of the thirteenth century, a number of names for the
followers of Waldes of Lyons are found. They liked to refer to them¬
selves as the “Poor in Spirit.” The Italians, who broke away from the
French group in 1205, were known as “Poor Lombards” or “Runcarii,”
after their leader, John of Ronco; they called their French coreligionists
“companions of Waldes,” “ultramontanes,” and “Waldenses.” From the
orginal name, “Poor of Lyons,” were derived the shorter forms, “Lyon-
ists,” and “Leonists.” In both groups, in allusion to the habit of wearing
special sandals, terms such as “Sandal-wearers” were applied to their
preachers, who also became known as the “Perfect.”
After the Poor of Lyons were expelled from their native city and their
movement expanded into Italy, Spain, and Germany, problems of
organization led to disputes between the Waldenses in northern Italy
and those in France which culminated in schism in 1205.220 These
factions developed other differences in dogma and practice, which they
sought to reconcile at a conference held in 1218. They were able to
Historical Sketch 51

come to agreement about the election of leaders within the groups,

baptism in water, the question of dissolving a marriage when one of
the partners wished to take up the ascetic life of a preacher, and the
right of the Lombards to continue their tutelage of communities of
pious laborers. But the reverence of the French party for Waldes, who
had died at some time after 1205, was too excessive for the Lombards,
and the Poor of Lyons advocated greater leniency toward the qualifi¬
cations of a priest than the Lombards would accept.830 The attempt at
unity failed, and each group retained its individuality thereafter, al¬
though both remained faithful in principle to the fundamentals of
poverty and preaching established by Waldes.231
For all groups of Waldenses in the early thirteenth century, the
apostolic life was all-important. Apostolicism led them to reject the
authority of the Roman hierarchy as ill-founded and unnecessary. The
Roman Church, they declared, had strayed from the true path when
Pope Sylvester I accepted the Donation of Constantine.232 The Poor of
Lyons were more willing to accept the ministry of Catholic priests of
good life than were the Lombards. In the early years of the thirteenth
century, both the Poor Lombards and the Poor of Lyons held that only
an ordained priest could consecrate the Eucharist, baptize, or hear
confessions. After 1218, this restriction was gradually amended, more
rapidly among the Poor of Lyons, and in the second half of the century
it was admitted that any good man or woman could consecrate the
Eucharist. This was done once a year, on Holy Thursday, when, in the
presence of an assemblage of the faithful, the priest consecrated the
bread and wine by multiple repetitions of the Lord’s Prayer and the sign
of the Cross.233
Over the years, the sandal-shod preachers assumed the status of
priests among the Waldenses. The Lombards allowed them a kind of
penitential power called “giving good advice”; other Waldenses per¬
mitted only a prayer that God would forgive the sinner. The Poor of
Lyons were more extreme in their dislike of marriage, the Lombards
more insistent that the separation of married couples be permitted only
with the full consent of both persons. The Poor Lombards were more
tolerant of the possession of property in their earlier years than were the
Poor of Lyons, but in the course of the thirteenth century they moved
back again to the affirmation, established by Waldes and preserved by
the Poor of Lyons, that the sandal-wearer must live in apostolic
poverty.234
52 Introduction

All Waldenses agreed that men and women of holy life who lived in
poverty could preach with full authority. Oaths and lies were forbidden
and it was believed to be a sin to kill anyone, even in executing a penalty
prescribed by lawful authority.235 Toward the middle of the thirteenth
century unorthodox ideas about the creation of bodies and about the
souls of men appeared in France, according to one inquisitor, who said
that “almost all” the Poor of Lyons believed that God had formed men
in bodies of clay and breathed life into them. The soul was thus con¬
sidered to be the Holy Spirit and part of God. Any good man shares in
divinity and may be called the son of God, and in his life are repeated
the incarnation, birth, martyrdom, and resurrection of Christ. The
concept of the Trinity was modified accordingly: The Father is he who
inspires good, the Son is whoever is converted to good, the Holy Spirit
is the agency of conversion.236 It is not assured, however, that these
beliefs were, in fact, widely accepted.
At all times, the Waldenses continued to emphasize the reading of
the Scriptures and preaching. Even simple laymen learned whole books
of the Bible by heart. Bibles in the vernacular and collections of excerpts
from the writings of the Church Fathers had been used from the first,
and sometimes schools were established for training preachers.237
Waldensian communities also underwent changes in administrative
organization during the thirteenth century. After Waldes’s death, all
communities chose officials to handle their affairs. In 1218, the Poor
Lombards had twelve officials elected for life, while the Poor of Lyons
chose two annually.238 By the early fourteenth century, the Poor of
Lyons were choosing one elected head, elected for life, who presided
over all affairs, while delegates from various localities met every year
to discuss matters of common concern. The communities who elected
these officials probably consisted only of those who had chosen to
follow the apostolic life in every respect, for a formal distinction had
emerged between the preachers, now called Perfect, and their adherents,
known as “believers” or “friends,” who accepted baptism from the
Perfect and heard their instruction, but lived in the world and were free
to marry and to own property.
The Perfect were ordained by the imposition of the hands of their
fellows after a period of probation and instruction, during which they
took the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. There were three
Historical Sketch 53

elective orders among the Perfect: bishops, priests, and deacons. The
first two could preach, hear confessions, and celebrate the Eucharist,
but the deacons, acting as their assistants, did not have sacramental
powers. The Perfect usually lived in houses of two or three men and
two or three women together, following a routine of prayer, religious
instruction, and visitation of the hostels where aged members of the
sect were cared for. They also traveled about to preach to believers in
their villages and to hear their confessions. These functions were their
whole concern, for they were supported entirely by the contributions of
the faithful.23® Thus, by the fourteenth century the Waldenses had
developed from an informal society of preachers dedicated to poverty
into an ecclesiastical organization which continued to emphasize the
original ideals but restricted preaching to a special group.
It may seem that the Waldenses adopted some things from other
heretical sects. It is indeed likely that the Poor of Lyons in their early
years were influenced by the anticlerical ideas disseminated in southern
France by Peter of Bruys and Henry. It may be that pantheistic doc¬
trines, such as those accepted by the Amalricians, came to have some
influence among the Waldenses of northern Europe, and among the
Poor Lombards the doctrine of generation of souls from souls was
probably Catharist in origin. For the most part, resemblances between
the Waldenses and the Cathars fall in the area of ritual, such as the
emphasis on the Lord’s Prayer, and these similarities may be ascribed
to coincidence rather than imitation. The Waldensian practice when
they ordained their Perfect, for example, may have been as much
inspired by the orthodox ceremonies for ordaining priests as by the
consolamentum,240 or it might have come from very close attention to
the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.
The question arises, Were the Waldenses pre-Reformation Protestants,
as some Protestant and Catholic scholars have asserted in the past? It
is difficult to support this, for Waldes had far more in common with
Francis of Assisi than with Luther or Calvin. The circumstances of the
twelfth century were not those of the sixteenth; the initial impetus of
apostolicism and poverty was thoroughly medieval, and the Waldenses
did not until the fifteenth century completely sever their ties with the
Roman Church, despite the fierce criticism which they launched against
it for the departure of its hierarchy from the apostolic tradition.
54 Introduction

Other Sects
About other sects of the time fewer details are available than for the
Waldenses and the Cathars. The Passagians and the other “Judaizers,”
who stressed observance of the Old Testament Law, must have had a
priesthood, but nothing is known of their formal organization. The
Amalricians of Paris—whose doctrines sprang, as has been said, from a
mixture of pantheism and the Joachimite theory of the three ages of the
world—declared that God was everywhere in all creation; furthermore,
they held that the Father had been incarnate in Abraham, the Son in
Christ through Mary, and now, as the third age began, the Holy Spirit
was incarnate in themselves. The perfect freedom with which they were
thus endowed meant repudiation of all formal religious institutions and
law. No hierarchy was needed. One of the group was known as a
“prophet” and apparently was their chief spokesman, although any of
the company might experience visions which would be recounted in
their private meetings. At least one Catholic priest taught some of their
ideas to his parishioners.241
New sects which came into being at the end of the thirteenth century
and in the early years of the fourteenth put great stress on preaching
and poverty as the foundation of holy life, but did not forego settled
community existence. The “pseudo-Apostles,” led by Gerard Segarelli
and Dolcino of Novara, taught that holy poverty was the only perfect
state, one in which all human restraints on religious expressions were
lifted. The Roman Church had no authority over them, for theirs was
the power that Christ had given to Peter, and in them was the only true
Church. Repentance and poverty as a way of life made churches,
monasteries, and legal institutions unnecessary. In the ceremony to
become an apostle the initiate, after suitable instruction, shed all cloth¬
ing, as a token of his renunciation of property; donned semimonastic
garb, as a symbol of his new profession; and then, under oath to live in
complete poverty, was free to preach anywhere and everywhere.242
The ideal of poverty, which had become a point of controversy within
the Franciscan order at the beginning of the fourteenth century, inspired
the sect of Beguins243 in southern France. Men and women who were
attracted by the teaching of the Spiritual Franciscans formed associations
dedicated to upholding the original rule of Francis as the first law of
life, accepting the dictum of the Spirituals that truly holy life forbids the
possession of property in any form, individually or collectively. For them
Historical Sketch 55
St. Francis was the perfect Christian, and Brother Peter John Olivi
(d. 1298) of the Spiritual faction was a prophet who had received God’s
revelation of things to come. From him the Beguins accepted the
Joachimite doctrine of the three ages. The world, they believed, was
now approaching the seventh and last subdivision of the second age, in
which a cataclysm would herald the coming of the Antichrist, whose
servant the Roman Church had plainly shown itself to be, in the eyes of
the Beguins, by condemning the advocates of complete poverty within
the Franciscan order. Soon would dawn the third age, that of the Holy
Spirit. The Beguins referred to themselves as “Brethren of Penitence,”
wore simple, drab clothing, and lived quietly in their own homes or in
“houses of poverty,” where men and women conducted services of
prayer and the reading of devotional works in the vernacular. In Italy,
groups of somewhat similar character were called “Little Brothers”
(Fraticelli), a term very loosely used and apparently applied to many
rebellious anticlerical dissenters in the turbulent fourteenth century.244
Such were some aspects of heretical sects of the thirteenth and early
fourteenth centuries. The remainder of this Introduction will be devoted
to a survey of the source materials from which the translations were
chosen.
 Sources for the History of the Heresies

The historian of medieval heresy must utilize several kinds of sources,

of varying quality. Annals and chronicles, letters, biographies, sermons,
and more-or-less conventional types of other records have information
to offer, as do the enactments of councils, papal letters, and documents
produced by the Inquisition. Of greatest value and meriting most atten¬
tion here is the literature directly inspired by heresy—that is, the works
produced by the heretics themselves and the writings of those who
sought to controvert heresy.

ORTHODOX LITERATURE

Annals, Chronicles, and Histories

For the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, monastic or episcopal
annals and the chronicles provide a considerable part of the information
about incidents of heresy, but, generally speaking, even the best of these
is of limited value.1 Information came rather haphazardly to most
compilers of these historical records, and nearby events might be
ignored, while news which had traveled some distance was recorded.2
When connected with an important event, however, such as the actions
of a monarch or the session of a church council, heresy might draw
widespread attention.3 The quality of historical writing improved rapidly
in the twelfth century, and erudite and well-informed observers like
John of Salisbury, who left a revealing portrait of Arnold of Brescia,4
were capable of discussing men and events with insight and clarity; it
may be thought regrettable that John and his contemporary, the great
historian Otto of Freising, did not add to their interest in speculative
and philosophical issues a greater concern with the popular heretical
sects.5 There is historical writing of good quality on the Albigensian
Crusade, as in the chronicle of Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay.0 Yet on the
whole, if there were only such narrative sources to depend on, a map
could be made of outbreaks of heresy and a record could be compiled
Historical Sources

of attempts to suppress it, but knowledge of heretical doctrines would

be scant.
In connection with the historical narratives, mention may be made
here of compilers of anecdotes such as Walter Map, Caesarius of Hei-
sterbach, and Stephen of Bourbon. Map wrote to entertain court circles;
Caesarius and Stephen collected stories to instruct monks and preachers;
but all knew how to tell a story well. They were alert for tales they
could use, but, like the annalist and chroniclers, they relished the un¬
usual, so that in their pages are found comments which may be taken to
something of the “folk attitudes” toward heresy 7

Autobiography and Biography

Perhaps the most noteworthy autobiography of the Middle Ages, that
of Guibert of Nogent, contains the recital of his encounter with heretics
and reveals the preconceptions about heresy in the mind of an intelligent,
well-educated man.8 Hagiographers, on the other hand, being primarily
concerned with evidence of the sanctity of their subjects, seldom re¬
corded material of any great value to us, as may be illustrated by the
short account taken from a typical life of a saint of twelfth-century
Italy.9 More revealing is another passage, drawn from the biography of
Bernard of Clairvaux by his one-time secretary Geoffrey of Auxerre;10
but, in general, biographical works do not contain much that is useful
for our purpose.11

Letters
Letters, being relatively abundant, constitute a valuable group of
sources about heresy, especially in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
As evidence they must be used with no less care than any other docu¬
ment, but letters so often recount personal experience that they convey
a sense of life and participation in the events of which they speak.
Churchmen wrote to seek advice from colleagues or to give it; they
reported to superiors or sought to warn fellow Christians about heresy.12
By letters, Bernard of Clairvaux harried Arnold of Brescia throughout
Europe and urged secular powers to assist the Church.13 Some polemical
tracts also took the form of letters.14
The voluminous papal correspondence has been drawn on less for
this volume than might be expected because popes often referred to
heresy without being explicit about the doctrines involved,15 although
58 Introduction

their letters are indispensable for knowledge of affairs which fall outside
our immediate concern: elucidation of official policies toward heresy,
decisions on individual cases, definition of inquisitorial powers, and the
like. For certain times and places, as in Italian cities of the late twelfth
century, letters of the popes constitute the chief evidence that heresy
was a problem.14
A unique document is the letter reporting a conference which sought
to heal the schism between two factions in the Waldensian movement,
one of the few documents to have survived from a Waldensian milieu
of the thirteenth century.17

Sermons
Although forceful methods, ranging from formal investigation and
judicial condemnation to lynching, were used against heretics from the
earliest years, there was also a persistent desire to protect the faithful
by proper instruction in religion and, if possible, to convert those who
were in error. Preaching was the chosen method for both. Preaching
against heresy was advocated and practiced ever more widely in the
twelfth century,18 and in the early thirteenth century special missions
preached in the areas most affected,1* their example inducing converts
to continue the same work.24 Celebrated individuals in the mendicant
orders, such as the Dominican Peter of Verona and the Franciscan
“hammer of heretics,” Anthony of Padua, were acclaimed by their
biographers for their public sermons against heresy, although their
miracles rather than their choice of words are usually given credit for
their successes.21
Not many of the actual sermons have survived:22 We know one
homily of Ralph the Ardent from the second half of the twelfth cen¬
tury2* and three sermons in the series on the Canticles, written some¬
what earlier by Bernard of Clakvaux.24 Philip of Gr&ve, chancellor of
Paris (1218-1236), several times spoke of heresy.23. Otherwise, the ser¬
mon collections do not disclose much that is pertinent to our present
purpose. Nor have the texts of the argumentative discourses—as much
sermons as debates—which resulted from the occasional confrontations
of Catholic and heretical spokesmen, survived. Delivered under condi¬
tions which militated against their being recorded, they have left only
traces in the narratives about the Cistercian preaching mission in
Languedoc24 or the early days of the mendicant orders, or in the lists
Historical Sources 59

of biblical texts sometimes gathered in a summa against heresy.27

Conciliar and Synodal Records

Synods and regional and general councils of the Church dealt with
heresy from the first years of the eleventh century. At first treated as a
local phenomenon, by the twelfth century heresy was recognized as a
problem of larger scale, and in the ecumenical councils of 1179 and
1215 the fundamental policies of the Church were stated. Of conciliar
enactments in general, it may be said that they are important in showing
the awareness of heresy and for tracing the evolution of ecclesiastical
■

policy, but the canons seldom illuminate the nature of the heretical
doctrines. Only a phrase or two may be devoted to the points at issue or
the areas of danger;28 often only names of sects are preserved in lists
r

which became stereotyped in the thirteenth century.29 There were excep¬

tions under special circumstances: The conversion of heretics in a synod
at Arras in 1025, a debate between heretics and Catholics at Lombers
in 1165, the profession of faith of Waldes at Lyons about 1180, and a
condemnation of the Amalricians at Paris in 1210 are included in this
volume.44

Inquisitorial Records
Much of the record of the transactions of the Inquisition has been
lost; of what survives, only a part has been put in print. Two valuable
guides to the manuscript materials were produced by Charles Molinier.31
Depositions and sentences from the years 1244 to 1267 were published
by Monsignor Celestin Douais;42 the documents from a special investi¬
gation at Albi at the end of the thirteenth century were published by
Georgene W. Davis.44 Philip van Limborch published the sentences of
Bernard Gui,44 and J. J. 1. von Dollinger made copious but careless
extracts from many inquisitorial records.45 The printed and manuscript
sources have been drawn on by historians of heresy and the Inquisition
in works too numerous to list,46 but they have been little utilized for the
translations in this volume.

Polemical Treatises
By the middle of the twelfth century, alarm at the prevalence of
heresy stimulated the desire for effective counteraction. A fundamental
problem was lack of detailed knowledge of the adversaries, a difficulty
60 Introduction

that became more acute with the spread of dualist sects and the prolifer¬
ation of the various ascetic and reforming groups after mid-century. At
the same time, the development of orthodox popular preaching as a
defense against the incursions heretics were making among the people
required the education of preachers in the nature of heresy and the
terms in which it might be rebutted. Such instruction was provided by
polemical treatises, which appeared in increasing numbers. Later, in the
operations of the Inquisition, the need to identify heretics and the ne¬
cessity of having a basis on which to construct suitable interrogatories
added to the incentives of controversialist writers. There came into
being a literature specifically devoted to heresy, made up of summae
contra haereticos, treatises describing doctrinal errors and offering argu¬
ments against them. That they were useful to contemporaries is obvious„
and today they furnish the most substantial body of information avail¬
able for the study of medieval heresy.
The polemical literature falls into three fairly distinct groupings.
Some tracts are “full-scale” in that they not only describe heresy and
the arguments of its partisans—a few are elaborate analyses of heretical
mythology, theology, and methods of biblical exegesis—but also provide
refutation of these arguments and give major attention to explaining the
scriptural and philosophical basis of orthodox doctrine.37 Others are
composed only of materials useful for the defense of orthodox doctrines,
and neglect the description of heresy or heretical arguments; at their
simplest, these are no more than lists of biblical texts assembled under
appropriate headings for the use of preachers who wished to encourage
the faithful and forewarn them against heretical ideas.38 A third type
includes tracts which describe heresy without attempting a rebuttal.
Some of these are manifestoes with alarmist overtones; others are careful
accounts giving descriptions which would have been of considerable
utility to episcopal officials and inquisitors. Several were, in fact, written
by inquisitors.
In content and style the polemical literature reflects how knowledge
of heresy was acquired and disseminated among the literate. Some
pieces, in the form of debates, show the influence of face-to-face dis¬
putation, which at first occurred freely in public or took place during
interrogations of suspects—events which became far less frequent as
prosecution grew more intense and the Inquisition adopted the rule that
no disputation with heretics under examination was desirable. Some
Historical Sources 61
authors acquired information from the writings of heretics themselves.
Confessions of converts and systematic interrogation of prisoners pro¬
duced data in increasing amounts in the thirteenth century.
Not all the authors of the polemics were churchmen; some laymen
were eager to wield the pen in defense of the faith. Nor was the con¬
troversy only two-sided. Discoveries of recent years have emphasized
the controversies between the Waldenses and the Cathars. That the two
sects were inveterate enemies has long been known,39 as has also the
career of Durand of Huesca, who left the Waldenses to return to the
Church and thereafter undertook to combat all heresy. But hitherto
unnoticed polemical works written by Durand against the Cathars have
recently been discovered, and the attribution of a long-known tract to
his companion, Ermengaud of Beziers, has been confirmed. Thus there
is disclosed a “school” of controversialists, Waldenses who became
Poor Catholics, and who, before and after their reconciliation, were
active in debate with the Cathars.40 Their polemical techniques differed
little from those of other contemporaries.
More than half of the tracts which survive were written between 1200
and 1250. About a third of the total number attacked only the Cathars;
nearly twice as many deal with both Cathars and Waldenses. In about
half a dozen of them other heresies are mentioned; one or two sects, in
fact, are known to us only from these sources.
The popularity and usefulness of the polemical treatises in their own
day may be roughly reckoned from the number of manuscripts of them
which have survived. Most are known today in two to four copies; but
for one of them there are twenty-eight manuscripts, for another thirty-
two, and there are more than fifty exemplars of another.41 But how
valid is the evidence that this literature provides? How much can be
accepted of the descriptions of heresies in these avowedly hostile
sources? Scholars have not been in agreement on the question.42 That
substantially the same statement about a sect may be found in several
different treatises has led some historians to conclude that the treatises
corroborate each other and that the evidence is reliable43 but other
investigators have argued that the orthodox view of the heretics was
stereotyped.44 Some of the similarities appear because one author bor¬
rowed from another, or both worked from a common source.45 Many of
the polemics, too, neglect the diversity within Catharism and other sects,
although we know from a variety of sources that none of the important
62 Introduction

popular heresies conformed to a single mold, that none had a unity or

rigidity of doctrine such as a centralized organization might have en¬
couraged. The Catholic controversialists, it has been argued, over¬
simplified the doctrines of their o •)III] I ents, attributing to them a system
that was not actually there.46 It has been stated that the testimony of
polemicists is corroborated by that elicited from witnesses by inquisitors;
yet it may be replied that the interrogations themselves could have been
based on misconceptions derived from the polemical literature. A further
problem arises from the attitude of Catholic writers, who treated heresy
only as negation of Christian orthodoxy, although surely none of the
great heresies drew its strength from denial alone.47 Thus is posed a
problem of historical criticism. Even the recent discoveries of heretical
writings allow the evidence of hostile witnesses to be tested against the
words of the heretics themselves for only a few of the points at issue.
But it seems possible to use at least some of the polemics with moderate
assurance. Those ought to be considered most reliable which are de¬
voted primarily to description, which are least strident in denunciation,
and of whose authors enough is known to establish their personal
qualifications and their exposure to the subject.48
To select for translation a few items from the many that are available
was a problem. The aims were to provide the fullest information about
heresy and to illustrate the variety of the polemical works. To meet the
first objective, documents which emphasize description rather than argu¬
ment were given preference. Some repetition of information was in¬
evitable. To show variety, relatively short excerpts were taken from a
number of polemics. In addition, since relatively few of this valuable
category of sources could be drawn on, a list of polemical tracts is
provided in the Appendix.

THE LITERATURE OF THE HERETICS

The works which the heretics of the Middle Ages wrote, read, or
discussed have been harshly handled by time and men. Destruction of
heretical literature by implacable and victorious opponents was a natural
consequence of the spirit in which religious controversies were waged,
and although book-burning has seldom been able to eradicate a litera¬
ture completely, scholars supposed until quite recently that most of the
writings of heretics had disappeared with the triumph of the Church.
Historical Sources 63
The question, How much heretical literature was there in the Middle
Ages? may be asked, but without hope of a definitive answer. One can
reasonably say that a great deal more was written than has survived. But
since search has recovered some of what once was presumed lost, we
may hope that still more will be found and identified.
Although there is evidence that at least a limited number of docu¬
ments were produced by heretics in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
no literary remains of the popular heresies before the end of the twelfth
century are known today, with the exception of the apocryphal works
imported from the Bogomils at about that time and used by the
Cathars.49 What we do have are indefinite references to some written
works. The teaching of the heretic Henry may have been written down
by a disciple, as it was by an opponent.50 Eudo of Brittany is said to
have had some “little writings” which were produced at his trial in
1148.51 Hugo Speroni, as was to be expected of a man of education,
recorded his convictions in a book which has disappeared.52 Heretics at
Toulouse in 1178 produced a written statement of their faith, to prove
its orthodoxy,53 and the spokesmen for the Poor of Lyons showed the
pope at the Third Lateran Council a book containing the Psalms, a gloss
on them, and several books of the Old and New Testaments.64 Mile
Thouzellier believes that Durand of Huesca wrote his Liber A ntiheresis
attacking the Cathars and extolling the teaching of Waldes at least as
early as the last decade of the twelfth century.55 Such is the evidence of
heretical literature before 1200. For later years there is much more.

The Waldenses and Minor Sects

The Waldenses—at least, before the late fourteenth century—were
less prolific in religious writing than the Cathars, perhaps because of
their insistence on propaganda by word of mouth and by example and
because they labored among the humbler folk.58 Their emphasis on
Bible reading is reflected in some surviving manuscripts of vernacular
translations of the Scriptures,57 and we hear of their using the Gospels,
the Psalter, Gregory the Great’s Moralia on Job,58 and excerpts from
patristic literature which they called “sentences”; in the fourteenth cen¬
tury they had compilations of their articles of faith.59 Perhaps some
documents relative to their internal affairs were circulated, for Moneta
of Cremona knew the theories of a Poor Lombard on the controversial
question of Waldes’s right to leadership.60 These views caused such a
64 Introduction

stir that it seems likely they had been spread in written form, although
it is possible that Moneta knew them from the letter which the Poor
Lombards wrote to their German colleagues. Otherwise, apart from
Waldes’s profession of faith, which was not entirely original with him,
and the works of controversy against the Cathars by Waldenses or ex-
Waldenses, already referred to, it is only from later centuries that any
considerable body of Waldensian literature has been preserved.®*
As for other sects, the short-lived group of Amalricians at Paris in
the first decade of the thirteenth century was undoubtedly literate. But
the only reference to writings other than those of Amalric of Bena, now
lost, is in the decree condemning the group, which requires all persons
to surrender to the bishop theological works in the vernacular—copies
of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and lives of the saints—under pain of
being condemned as heretics for possessing them.®2 A century later it
was said that the Beguins had a considerable number of vernacular
works discussing their particular doctrines, and Peter John Olivi, of
course, was a prolific writer.®8

The Cathars
The Cathars of the thirteenth century, without neglecting preaching,
lived with books, for they attracted members from the social classes apt
to be literate.*4 There are references to their own schools®5 as well as to
their practice of sending qualified persons to study at the great universi¬
ties.®® They knew and used apocrypha from the remote or recent past,
they studied the Scriptures and preached from them, they explained and
defended their doctrines in writing. These general facts have long been
known from statements of their adversaries. It is only since 1939 that
their literary activity can be evaluated from their own writings, although
what relation the Catharist works which have now been discovered bear
to the total that once existed is still a question for scholars to debate.®7
On the present evidence we may attempt to classify their written works
tentatively into certain types and to sketch the general characteristics
of these types.
Bibles. Latin and vernacular copies of the Gospels and Epistles, the
Psalter, and other portions of the Holy Scriptures were in common use.
There is no longer any question of the version; it was based on the
Vulgate tradition rather than derived, as sometimes has been suggested,
from some Eastern version or a pre-Jerome translation.®8 Vernacular
Historical Sources 65

translations were desirable for religious instruction of the believers and

were circulated among them in southern France; we may assume the
same of Lombardy and elsewhere.*19 In retrospect, one can see that the
attempt by the Church to ban vernacular translations of the Scriptures
in order to prevent the Cathars and Waldenses from making use of them
was an attempt to dam a torrent with twigs.70
In this connection the prayers of the Cathars may be mentioned. The
Lord’s Prayer was always said in Latin, as was the Gospel of John in
the ritual of the consolamentum; but the Lord’s Prayer might be glossed,
and other prayers recited, in the vernacular.71
Apocryphal Works. The Cathars’ use of The Vision of Isaiah and
The Secret Supper in their “Bogomil editions” is commented on in more
detail in the introductions to these pieces, Number 56. These borrowed
works, which reached the West probably not before the very end of the
twelfth century, were used to confirm or illustrate Catharist teaching,
rather than as a source of dogma. That the Cathars also drew on other
legendary and apocryphal writings has been suggested but not demon¬
strated.72 Luke, bishop of Tuy, remarks on the activities of a heretic
named Arnold, from Gascony or Languedoc, a very skilled copyist, who
was in the habit of counterfeiting the works of the Fathers by intro¬
ducing heretical propositions (herein, to the discomfiture of the clergy
and faithful in the kingdom of Leon.7* Can there be a reference here to
copies of apocryphal works?
Creeds and Professions of Faith. Statements of faith which at first
glance seemed to be unobjectionably orthodox were sometimes pre¬
pared, perhaps to deceive prosecutors, or as the first steps in religious
propaganda among the people. Heretics appeared before a mission in
Toulouse in 1178 with such a credo, its content perhaps analogous to
the first chapter of the “Manichaean” which will be referred
in the next paragraph. Some general circulation of such documents is
hinted at elsewhere: In the early fourteenth century, the heretic James
Autier possessed an exposition in Latin of creation by God, in which
one who read it found nothing contrary to the orthodox faith;74 and
Peter Autier promised to send to a believer a book in which he would
find “good words him of the right beliefs
Discussions of Doctrine. Treatises for use in instruction or as polemics
3 known through certain references to them and from two which have
survived: A “Manichaean” treatise of about 1220, written Lan
66 Introduction
guedoc, and The Book of the Two Principles, written in Lombardy in
the middle years of the thirteenth century (translated in Nos. 58 and 59,
respectively). The first of these is no less important because it has been
preserved only in part—Durand of Huesca copied extracts from it into
his treatise of refutation and designated it as a Manichaean work. It is
devoted to an exposition of absolute dualism, with adroit use of the Bible
to convey its message and support its contentions. The Book of the Two
Principles, if not written by John of Lugio himself, was produced within
the circle of his followers among the Albanenses after 1230.7* Although
rather harsh judgments of its quality have been made,77 this remains
our chief monument of Catharist theology. Comparison of the concepts
in these two works and of their use of the Scriptures reveals a com¬
munity of ideas among the Albigenses of southern France and some of
the Albanenses of Italy.
Of more restricted scope, but most revealing of the Catbars’ view of
themselves and their church, are the discourses to initiates preserved in
the rituals which they used (see No. 57) and another little treatise, A
Vindication of the Church of God (No. 60, part A). This treatise and
one of the rituals were written in Provencal dialects; the other ritual is
in Latin. The point of view expressed in the rituals is exactly reproduced
in A Vindication of the Church of God: the Cathars saw themselves as
true Christians, their morality as that of Christ and the apostles. Still
another document in Provencal, in the form of a commentary on the
Lord’s Prayer, reveals a mystical, Neo-Gnostic concept of the means of
salvation (No. 60, part B). It has in common with other pieces of
Catharist authorship the acceptance of absolute dualism, a reference to
The Vision of Isaiah, and the use of some phrases important to the
Cathars (e.g., “people of God”), but neither the time nor place of its
origin can be suggested with any assurance.
Works of Unknown Character. There are a number of references to
heretical works which give very little clue to their contents. On occasion
the heretics of southern France, like their Cistercian opponents, sum¬
marized the arguments made in open debates in little written compen-
diums for consideration by judges of these theological jousts.78 A layman
of Piacenza, Salvo Burci, wrote a reply to a heretical work which was
circulating in that city under the title Stella.1* Peter Gallus, a heretical
bishop of Lombardy, is presumed to have written a treatise known to
the inquisitor Peter of Verona and to Albert the Great.80 Luke of Tuy
Historical Sources 67
refers to a heretical Perpendiculum scientiarum which presented the
scriptural basis for their faith.81 Moneta of Cremona among his other
sources had before him the writings of two heretics whom he named.
One, Tetricus, was a proponent of absolute dualism; his treatise was of
some length, for Moneta identifies a passage as appearing in the eleventh
chapter of one of its divisions. All we know of its content through
Moneta is that Tetricus discussed the antiquity of the angelic creation,
the identification of fallen angels as souls of men (which, he held, were
never created de novo by God), and the proper method (taking the
literal sense) of interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament.82 The
other heresiarch was Desiderius, leader of a schism among the Con-
corezzenses, mitigated dualists of Lombardy.83 An Albigensian teacher
claimed to have many works describing the role of Lucifer in the
struggle between good and evil,84 and there was some trade in the
writings of the heretics.88 And as our last bit of evidence we may refer
to the tantalizing story told by Stephen of Bourbon about Robert,
dauphin of Auvergne, marquis of Montferrand (d. 1234). Robert was a
poet and for forty years had collected books of all the heretical sects.
To friars who investigated this interest of his, he explained that he
sought out the heretical books so that by reading them his own loyalty
to the Church would be encouraged and he might learn how to refute
their errors. His contempt for heresy, he declared, was shown by the
fact that he kept the volumes in a box in his chamber, so that they
would be under his feet in his most private moments. But discretion
overcame curiosity, and Robert had all the offensive works burned.86
One more category of sources must be mentioned. It has been alleged
that Catharist thought is expressed in some of the poems of the trou¬
badours, in the medieval versions of the Arthurian cycle, and especially
in the legends of the quest for the Holy Grail. The search for traces of
Catharism in such literature has been pressed with enthusiasm but has
not produced convincing results.87
 A Note on the Translations
The documents translated in this volume come from the eleventh,
twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, with the following exceptions: Two
apocryphal works borrowed by the Cathars from the Bogomils (No. 56)
were composed before a.d. 1000; Bernard Gui’s manual for inquisitors
(No. 55) dates from 1323-1324; and the date of a Provencal com¬
mentary on the Lord’s Prayer (No. 60, part B) is conjectural.
These were the criteria for our choice of materials for translation:
All known major works of heretical authorship were to be included.1 In
selections from other sources, the objectives were to illustrate as many
aspects of heretical doctrines as possible and, at the risk of redundancy,
to show the diversities within the major heretical movements; to indicate
something of the origin of the available sources in time and place,
thereby to show when and where the heresies attracted attention; and to
give examples of the kind of literature produced in the religious contro¬
versy. To the last stated aim, however, there is an important exception:
sources which pertain primarily to the repression of heresy, as far as
these can be differentiated from others, were seldom drawn on. Of
course, the report of heresy is often a report of action against it, but
omitted here are the records of ecclesiastical or secular legislation,
documents dealing primarily with the establishment or operations of
the Inquisition, and narratives of the crusades against the Albigenses,
the Stedingers, or the Fraticelli.
The translations are arranged generally in chronological order, al¬
though the date of several pieces is difficult to fix accurately. We have
placed narrative passages according to the year of the event’s occurrence
and descriptive or polemical works according to the date of composition.
with some exceptions, as for Nos. 24 and 33. The documents are ar¬
ranged in four general divisions. In the first are the earliest substantial
Note on the Translations 69
descriptions of heresy from the late tenth century to about the middle
of the twelfth. Then follow others carrying the story to the end of the
pontificate of Innocent III (1216), a time when heresies were still ex¬
panding but the Church was mustering its forces strongly against them.
Here the profusion of materials suggested three subdivisions of sources,
relating to Italy, southern France, and northern Europe, respectively.
A third group contains works produced from about 1216 to 1324. All
of the pieces so far mentioned were written by orthodox authors, with
the exception of a letter (No. 46) which originated among the Wal-
denses. Last among the translations come works written by the Cathars,
together with two apocrypha they received from the Bogomils.
In putting the texts into English, we considered fidelity to the original
to be of first importance, sometimes, perhaps, at the expense of the
readability which a freer rendering would allow. For biblical quotations,
the language of the Douay-Rheims translation (Challoner’s revision) of
the Vulgate is used, with these exceptions: For personal and place
names, the more familiar forms from the Authorized Version are used;
for general vocabulary, American orthography is used to correspond to
the style of the rest of the text; and on occasion the archaic terms or
expressions of the Douay translation are replaced with the more familiar
terms from the Authorized Version, attention being called to such sub¬
stitutions in the notes. “Holy Spirit” is used throughout in place of the
“Holy Ghost” of the Douay-Rheims. The words of the source are
followed when they differ from the Vulgate, but the difference is men¬
tioned in the notes only when it is extreme or significant to the meaning
of the passage. In general, modem English equivalents for medieval
personal and place names are used, except where such usage would be
unfamiliar and confusing.
The introduction and notes to each translated piece seek to place the
document in its historical context, identify persons and places mentioned
in the piece, offer some discussion of any unusual terminology, and
refer to the scholarly investigations which have made this work possible.
Scarcely one of the sources has escaped being the subject of dispute in
some particular. It may be the duty of the translator to call attention
to such differences of learned opinion without becoming involved in
them. It is not one that we have always been able to carry out.
BLANK PAGE
 Early Appearances of the Heresies
in Western Europe

Two narratives of popular heresy recounted by Ralph the Bald (Radulphus

Glaber) are given here in the order in which Ralph presents them, although
the second probably antedates the first by some two decades. As far as can
be discerned from the scanty evidence, the motivation and aims of the cen¬
tral figures—the peasant of Ch&lons and the scholar of Ravenna—were very
different, and the significance of their views, particularly those of the former,
is open to various interpretations, chiefly on the question of Bogomil influ¬
ence.1 Yet both of these episodes show currents running in the West: the
first, ascetic piety; the second, enthusiasm for learning. It was the first of
these motives which became more evident and important in other instances
of heresy in the following half-century.
Ralph the Bald wrote his history presumably during some two decades in
the second quarter of the eleventh century, dedicating it to Odilo, abbot of
Cluny—one of the several monastic communities of which Ralph was a
member at one time or another. Both the facts of Ralph’s life and the credi¬
bility of his narrative have been the subject of scholarly dispute. He certainly
shared with contemporaries a belief in miracles, signs, and wonders, and
looked forward to the imminent end of the world, but intelligence and a
lively curiosity are also displayed in his work, with an interest in drawing
meaning from the events which are recounted. Although Ralph’s knowledge
of heresy was vague and fragmentary, there seems to be no good reason to
question the honesty of his references to it.
The best discussion of the incidents described here is in Ilarino da Milano,
“Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 46-49. See also Russell, Dissent
and Reform, pp. 110-13. The Introduction to Prou’s edition of Ralph the
Bald’s history assembles most of what is known of Ralph, but one may also
consult Paul Rousset, “Raoul Glaber, interprete de la pensee commune au
XI® stecle,” Revue d’histoire de VSglise de France, XXXVI (1950), 5-24.
The two selections which follow are translated, by permission of Editions
A. and J. Picard, from Raoul Glaber: Les cinq livres de ses histoires u.xi,xii,
ed. by Maurice Prou (Collection de textes pour servir a l’etude et a 1’ensei-
gnement de l’histoire, I [Paris, 1866]), pp. 49-50.
72 Early Appearances of Heresy
A. LEUTARD AND THE BEES

circa 1000
About the end of the year 1000 there appeared in Gaul, in a village
called Vertus, in the district of Ch&lons, a peasant named Leutard.2 As
the outcome of the matter proved, he could well be regarded as an
emissary of Satan. His stubborn insanity began like this: He was once
laboring alone in a field and had just about finished a piece of work
when, wearied by his exertions, he fell asleep and it seemed to him that
a great swarm of bees entered his body through his privates. These same
bees, as they made their way out through his mouth with a loud noise,
tormented him by their stings; and after he had been greatly vexed in this
fashion for some time, they seemed to speak to him, bidding him to do
things impossible to men.3
At length, he arose exhausted and went home. He sent away his wife
as though he effected the separation by command of the Gospel; then
going forth, he entered the church as if to pray, seized and broke to bits
the cross and image of the Savior. Those who watched this trembled with
fear, thinking him to be mad, as he was; and since rustics are prone to
fall into error, he persuaded them that these things were done by a
miraculous revelation from God.
But he indulged too much in empty words, devoid of utility or truth,
and in his desire to appear learned, he taught the opposite of a master of
learning, for he said it was altogether needless and foolish to give tithes.
And just as other heresies cloak themselves with the Holy Scriptures
which they contradict, so that they may practice more wily deception, he
too declared that the prophets had set forth some useful things and some
not to be believed. In a short time, his fame, as if it were that of a sane
and religious person, drew to him no small part of the common people.
But the most erudite Gebuin4—the elderly bishop in whose diocese
the man lived—on learning of this, commanded that the man be brought
before him. When the bishop had questioned Leutard about those things
which, according to report, he had said and done, the man began to con¬
ceal the poison of his wickedness, wishing that he had not presumed to
take on himself the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. But the very
wise bishop, hearing unseemly things—nay, rather what was indeed base
and damnable—made it clear that the lunatic had become a heretic; he
recalled the partly deluded people from insanity and reinstated them
1. Early Traces of Heresy 73
more firmly in the Catholic faith.5 But Leutard, realizing that he had
been completely overcome and deprived of the adulation of the people,
threw himself to his death in a well.

B. VILGARD AT RAVENNA, AND OTHER DISTURBANCES

circa 970
At that time6 also, mischief not unlike the above appeared at Ravenna.
A certain man named Vilgard occupied himself with more eagerness
than constancy in literary studies, for it was always the Italian habit to
pursue these to the neglect of the other arts. Then one night when,
puffed up with pride in the knowledge of his art, he had begun to reveal
himself to be more stupid than wise, demons in the likeness of the poets
Vergil, Horace, and Juvenal appeared to him, pretending thanks for the
loving study which he devoted to the contents of their books and for
serving as their happy herald to posterity. They promised him, moreover,
that he would soon share their renown. Corrupted by these devilish de¬
ceptions, he began pompously to teach many things contrary to holy faith
and made the assertion that the words of the poets deserved belief in all
instances. But he was at last discovered to be a heretic7 and was con¬
demned by Peter, archbishop of that city.8
Many others holding this noxious doctrine were discovered throughout
Italy, and they too died by sword and pyre.9 Indeed, at this same period
some went forth from the island of Sardinia—which usually teems with
this sort of folk—to infect the people of Spain, but they were extermi¬
nated 10 by the Catholics. This accords with the prophecy of the apostle
John, in which he said that Satan would be released when a thousand
years had passed.11 Of this we shall treat more fully in a third book.

2. “Manichaeans” in Aquitaine
The brief notices translated here and in Number 3, part A, were written by
Ad6mar of Chabannes (998-1034). Like many other writers of succeeding
generations, he assumed a direct filiation from the Manichaeans of the third
and fourth centuries to the heretics of his own day and his use of that name
may have arisen from a comparison of contemporary sects with the picture
of Manichaeans drawn by St. Augustine. Ad6mar, born a member of the
lesser nobility of the Limousin in west-central France, was placed at an
early age in the monastery of St. Cybard in Angoul£me, where he devoted
74 Early Appearances of Heresy

himself to copying manuscripts and writing history. His most important

work, the chronicle from which this excerpt comes, is a history of France
to the year 1028. Much of it is merely a compilation from earlier sources,
but the latter part of the third book is his own and an important narrative
source for the history of France, especially of Aquitaine, in the later tenth
century and the first quarter of the eleventh. Although he was an intelligent
and well-informed observer, Ad6mar seems to have had only hearsay knowl¬
edge of the heretical movements to which he occasionally refers. On the
incident reported here, see Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi
Gregoriani, II, 51-52. For what little is known of Ad6mar’s life and a charac¬
terization of his work, consult the Introduction by Chavanon to the edition
of the chronicle and Thompson, A History of Historical Writing, I, 229-30.
The following is translated, by permission of Editions A. and J. Picard,
from Ad£mar of Chabannes Chronique m.xlix, ed. by Jules Chavanon (Col¬
lection de textes pour servir k l’etude et a l’enseignement de l’histoire, XX
[Paris, 1897]), p. 173.
circa 1018
A little later, Manichaeans 1 appeared throughout Aquitaine leading
the people astray. They denied baptism and the Cross and every sound
doctrine. They abstained from food and seemed like monks; they pre¬
tended chastity, but among themselves they practiced every debauchery.
They were ambassadors of Antichrist and caused many to turn away
from the faith.2

3. Heresy at Orleans
An incident at Orleans in 1022 provides us with the first circumstantial de¬
scription of a popular heresy in the Middle Ages. Certain aspects of the
heretical group involved have drawn much comment: the participation of
nobles as well as clergy and scholars, the belief in Docetic doctrine, the
repudiation of the material world, and an emphasis on inner spirituality—all
of which raise the question of possible Bogomil influence. We also encounter
here the earliest charges of devil-worship as a concomitant of heresy. Of
the dozen accounts of the incident which have survived, two are translated
below. One is by Ademar of Chabannes, whose work has already been
drawn upon; the second and more elaborate narrative was written by Paul,
a monk of the Benedictine monastery of Saint-Peter-in-the-Valley, situated
outside the walls of Chartres. When Paul, at the bidding of his abbot, began
to compile a chartulary of his monastery,1 he inserted among the documents
mention of events in Chartres and nearby regions. He wrote apparently
some fifty years after the incident at Orleans, but he had known Arefast,
one of its principals, as a monk at Saint-Peter and, it may be presumed,
had obtained some of the information from him.
3. Heresy at Orleans 75

The heresy at Orleans is discussed in Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie

popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 52-60; Russell, Dissent and Reform,
pp. 27-35 and 276, n. 24; and Borst, pp. 74-76. All that is known of the
life of Paul, the monk of Saint-Peter-in-the-Valley, is found in the intro¬
duction to the published chartulary, pp. cclxvii-cclxxv.
Part A is translated, by permission of Editions A. and J. Picard, from
Ad6mar of Chabannes Chronique m.lix, ed. by Jules Chavanon (Collection
de textes pour servir a l’etude et a l’enseignement de l’histoire, XX [Paris,
1897]), pp. 184-85. Part B is translated from Vetus Aganon vi.iii, ed. by
Benjamin-Edm6-Charles Guerard, in Cartulaire de Vabbaye de Saint-Pere de
Chartres (Collection des cartulaires de France, Vol. I; in Collection de
documents inedits sur l’histoire de France, ser. I: Histoire politique [Paris,
1840]), I, 109-15.

A. A REPORT BY ADEMAR OF CHABANNES

1022
At that time ten of the canons of the Church of the Holy Cross at
Orleans who appeared to be more religious than others were proved to
be Manichaeans. When they would not return to the faith, King Robert2
commanded that they be first deposed from priestly rank, then cast out
of the Church, and finally consumed by fire. For they were deceived by
a certain rustic from Perigord3 who claimed that he performed miracles
and who carried about with him the ashes of dead children, by which he
soon made a Manichaean of anyone to whom he could give them. They
adored the devil, who appeared to them first as an Ethiopian, then as an
angel of light, and who daily brought them much money. In obedience
to his works, in private they completely rejected Christ and secretly
practiced abominations and crimes of which it is shameful even to
speak,4 while publicly they pretended to be true Christians.
No less were Manichaeans discovered and destroyed at Toulouse; and
in various parts of the West, messengers of Antichrist arose, disguised
themselves with care, and led astray whatever men and women they
could. Also, a certain cantor of the canons of Orleans, named Theo-
datus, had given every appearance of piety but, as trustworthy persons
declared, had died in that heresy three years before. When this was
proved, his body was dug up from the cemetery by command of Bishop
Odalric5 and was thrown out into a waste place.
The ten6 persons mentioned above were sentenced to the flames,
among them Lisoius,7 whom the king had greatly loved for the sanctity
76 Early A ppearances of Heresy

which he believed to be in him. Unconcerned, they showed no fear of

the fire, predicted that they would emerge unscathed from the flames,
and laughed as they were bound on the pyre.8 They were promptly
reduced to ashes, so completely that not a trace of their bones was found.

B. THE NARRATIVE OF PAUL, A MONK OF CHARTRES

1022
Furthermore, I consider it worth recording how this afore-mentioned
Arefast,9 by divine aid and by the keenness of his own healthy wit, not
only detected but entirely suppressed in the city of Orleans the heretical
depravity which at that time was secretly spreading and pouring the
poison of wicked error throughout the Gallic lands.
He was of the lineage of the dukes of Normandy, a man refined in
speech, wise in counsel, blessed with good habits, and therefore very
well known for his services as emissary, not only to the king of the
French but also among the great nobles. It is told that he had in his
household at that time a certain cleric named Heribert, who for the
purposes of study had decided to go to the city of Orleans. But, in fact,
while busily seeking authors of truth, he strayed down a blind path into
a pit of flagrant heresy. For in the same city at that season two clerics,
Stephen and Lisoius,10 were in popular repute distinguished above all
others in wisdom, eminent in holiness and piety, bountiful in charity.
The aforesaid cleric sought them out and after a brief interval, now be¬
come a docile disciple by the sweetness of the holy word, he was made
drunken by them with deadly draughts of evil. Ensnared in madness and
devilish error, lacking all knowledge of theology, he believed himself to
have ascended the peak of wisdom. Returning to his homeland, he sought
by gradual and subtle suggestion to draw his master (whom he cherished
with singular affection) with him into the path of error, alleging that the
city of Orleans shone more than other cities with the light of wisdom
and the luster of holiness. His master, lending an intelligent ear, per¬
ceived by the man’s words that he had strayed from the path of right¬
eousness. He quickly informed Duke Richard 11 of the situation, asked
that the latter disclose to King Robert by letter the pest then lurking in
his kingdom, before it could spread, and requested that the king not
refuse needful assistance to this same Arefast in driving it out.
And so, the king, thunderstruck by the unexpected disclosure, ordered
3. Heresy at Orleans 77

the man speedily to proceed to Orleans with his cleric, promising his
every aid in this affair. When Arefast began to journey in compliance
with the king’s order, he passed through Chartres for the purpose of
consulting the venerable prelate Fulbert12 in regard to the matter; but it
chanced that Fulbert was absent, for he had gone to Rome to pray. So
{Arefast] disclosed the reason for the journey to a certain wise cleric
named Evrard, sacristan of the church at Chartres, and entreated the
boon of his advice: how ought he to conduct himself in discussion, by
what arms could he fortify himself against the multitudinous wiles of
devilish deceit? Evrard, well versed in wise counsel, instructed him to
go piously to church every day, the first thing in the morning, to seek
the aid of the Almighty, to devote himself to prayer, and to fortify him¬
self with the Most Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ.
Then, protected by the sign of the Holy Cross, he should confidently
proceed to listen to the heretical depravity. He should contradict nothing
that he would hear from them but, in his assumed role of a disciple,
should silently store up all things in his breast.
So, when Arefast came to Orleans thus instructed, daily strengthened
by Holy Communion and prayer for aid, attending their instruction in the
guise of an ignorant disciple, he was at last admitted within the house
of errors. When first they taught him by stories from Holy Writ and by
certain analogies and when they observed him attending with submissive
ear like a perfect disciple, they explained to him, among other analogies,
one of the forest tree:
“You are to be treated by us,” they said, “like a tree of the forest
which, when transplanted into a garden, is amply supplied with water
until it is well rooted in the soil. It is then pruned of thorns and super¬
fluous branches so that, after it is cut off near the ground with a hoe, it
may be grafted with a better cutting, which later will bear sweet fruit.
So you, in like manner, being transferred from the evil world into our
holy companionship, will be well supplied with the water of wisdom
until you are instructed and are strong enough to be shorn of the thorns
of evil by the sword of the Word of God, and when we have driven
absurd teachings from the shelter of your heart, you can receive with
purity of mind our teaching, bestowed by the Holy Spirit.”
Now, he always gave thanks to God for every word which they uttered
to him, whence they were sure that he was converted to their error. And
then the reckless men disclosed the dregs of their wickedness, hitherto
78 Early A ppearances of Heresy

buried under the words of Holy Writ: they said that Christ was not born
of the Virgin, nor did He suffer for men, nor was He truly laid in the
tomb, nor did He arise from the dead; and they added that in baptism
there was no cleansing of sins, nor was there a sacrament in the con¬
secration by a priest of the body and blood of Christ. They held for
naught the invocation of holy martyrs and confessors. When these
abandoned and utterly wretched men had vomited forth these and other
detestable things from their stinking breasts, Arefast is said to have
spoken to them as follows: “If in these points which you have enumerated
there can, as you say, be none of the hoped-for salvation of men, I be¬
seech you urgently to show me in what things one may trust, lest my
soul, being thrown into doubt, fall quickly into the catastrophe of des¬
peration.”
“Without doubt, Brother,” they replied, “you have thus far been im¬
mersed with the ignorant in the Charybdis of false belief; now, indeed,
raised on the peak of total truth, you have begun to open the eyes of a
sound mind to the light of true faith. We throw open to you the gateway
of salvation, by which—to wit, by the imposition of our hands—if you
enter you will be cleansed from the stain of all sin and you will be filled
by the gift of the Holy Spirit, who will teach you without reserve the
profundity and divine excellence of all the Scriptures. Then, nourished
by heavenly fare, refreshed by inward fullness, often will you see with us
angelic visions, in which, sustained by their consolation, you can visit
whatsoever places you wish without delay or difficulty. And nothing
shall you want, since the God of all, in Whom are the treasuries of wis¬
dom and riches, will never cease to be your companion.”
Meanwhile, the king and Queen Constance had come to Orleans with
a company of bishops, in accordance with a request from Arefast. The
day after their arrival, at the suggestion of the man himself, royal officers
dragged that most wicked group, all together, from the house where
they had gathered, and they were brought to the Church of the Holy
Cross into the presence of the king and an assemblage of bishops and
clergy. But before we come to the encounter, I shall take pains to reveal
to the uninformed something about that food which they called celestial,
and by what art it was confected.
They gathered, indeed, on certain nights in a designated house, every¬
one carrying a light in his hands, and like merry-makers they chanted
the names of demons until suddenly they saw descend among them a
3. Heresy at Orleans 79
demon in the likeness of some sort of little beast. As soon as the ap¬
parition was visible to everyone, all the lights were forthwith extinguish¬
ed and each, with the least possible delay, seized the woman who first
came to hand, to abuse her, without thought of sin. Whether it were
mother, sister, or nun whom they embraced, they deemed it an act of
sanctity and piety to lie with her. When a child was born of this most
filthy union, on the eighth day thereafter a great fire was lighted and the
child was purified by fire in the manner of the old pagans, and so was
cremated. Its ashes were collected and preserved with as great veneration
as Christian reverence is wont to guard the body of Christ, being given
to the sick as a viaticum at the moment of their departing this world.
Indeed, such power of devilish fraud was in these ashes that whoever had
been imbued with the aforesaid heresy and had partaken of no matter
how small a portion of them was scarcely ever afterward able to direct
the course of his thought from this heresy to the path of truth.13 Let it
suffice to have said a little on this subject, so that worshipers of Christ
may guard themselves against this wicked work and not busy themselves
to imitate it by forming sects.
However, since I seem to have digressed, the discussion should be
brought back to the point where I left it. The barbarity of the infidels
will be recounted in brief fashion, lest a more prolix recital of the con¬
troversy induce disgust in the fastidious reader.
Now when, as has been related, these persons were taken before the
king and the convocation of bishops, Arefast first addressed the king,
saying, “My Lord King, I am a knight, the man of Richard, your most
faithful duke of Normandy, and without cause am I held in bonds and
chains before you.” To him the king replied thus: “State quickly the
reason for your presence here, so that when it is revealed you may be kept
in bonds as guilty, or, innocent and released from the chains, you may
be discharged.” To this the man made answer, “Having heard of the
wisdom and piety of those who with me stand captive before you, I
chose to come to this city so that thereafter I might return home, made
better by the example of their good works and doctrine. This, indeed, is
the reason why I chose to leave my homeland and why I sought this
city. Now let the prelates present with you consider and judge if I am
held in any way guilty in this act.”
The bishops thereupon said, “If you will explain to us the nature of
the wisdom and piety which you learned from them, we can easily reach
80 Early A ppearances of Heresy

a decision.” To which the man replied, “Let Your Royal Majesty and
Your Authority order these men to disclose to you the things which they
taught me, to the end that when you have heard them, they may be
judged worthy of praise or consigned to oblivion as unworthy.”
When the king and bishops ordered these persons to reply and to
make clear the pattern of their faith, the enemies of all truth, some of
whom spoke for the others, had no intention of entering upon the filthi¬
ness of their heresy by any avenue, but, like the serpent which the more
easily eludes the grasp the more tightly it is held in the hands, the more
they in their slipperiness were hemmed in by the word of truth, so much
the more did they seem to get away.
Then Arefast, seeing how they would gain time and how, behind a
shield of words, they would hasten to obscure the error of their faith,
turned to them and said: “I thought to have in you masters of truth, not
of error, when you consistently preached to me that teaching as health¬
giving. I witnessed your instruction, and you promised me that you
would never deny it to avoid punishment, not even in peril of death. Now
indeed, I see that in fear of death, forgetful of the faith which you held
forth, you wish to disassociate yourselves from that teaching, and you
think little of sending me, an untrained disciple, into peril of death. Now
the royal command ought to be carried out and it is fitting to obey the
authority of prelates such as these, to the end that if any of these things
which I have learned from you are contrary to Christian piety, T, cogni¬
zant of the judgment of these men, shall know which are to be followed
and which are to be rejected. Now, certainly you taught me that no
forgiveness of sins is acquired in baptism, that Christ was not born of
the Virgin, that He did not suffer for men, nor was He truly buried, nor
did He rise again from the dead, nor can the bread and wine which on
the altar in the hands of priests, by action of the Holy Spirit, seems to
be made a sacrament actually be changed into the body and blood of
Christ.”
When Arefast had pronounced these charges in a loud voice, Guarin,
bishop of Beauvais, asked Stephen and Lisoius, who seemed to be the
leaders in this error, if their thoughts had this bent and if they believed
the things which were enunciated by Arefast. These men, for whom
an abode in hell with the devil was already waiting, declared the enumer¬
ated articles to be true, that these were their doctrines and thus stead-
3. Heresy at Orleans 81
Christ who was born of the Virgin possible—and who suffered
in His humanity for our salvation, so that on the third day, death defeat¬
ed, He might arise in His divinity and might teach us that we, cleansed
of sin, shall rise again, they replied with the tongues of vipers, “We
were not there and we cannot believe that to be true.” At this the bishop
questioned them as follows: “Do you or do you not believe in parents
of the flesh?” When they affirmed that they did, the bishop replied, “If
you believe that before you existed you were begotten by your parents,
why do you refuse to believe in God generated of God, without a mother,
before time began, and at the appointed time born of the Virgin by the
overshadowing of the Holy Spirit?” But they said, “What nature denies
is always out of harmony with the Creator.” Then the bishop answered,
“Do you not believe that before anything was made through nature God
the Father created everything from nothing through the Son?” To which
u
these exiles from the faith said You may spin stories in that way
those who have earthly wisdom and believe the fictions of carnal men,
scribbled on animal skins. To us, however, who have the law written
upon the heart by the Holy Spirit (and we recognize nothing but what
we have learned from God, Creator of all), in vain you spin out super¬
fluities and things inconsistent with the Divinity. Therefore, make an end
to words and do whatever you wish with us. For we shall see our King,
reigning in heaven, Who will raise us in heavenly joys to everlasting
triumphs at His right hand.” 14
After all had striven in manifold ways from the first to the ninth hour
of the day to recall them from their error and they, harder than iron, paid
not the least attention, they were ordered each to be garbed in the
sacred dress of his order; and forthwith each was deposed from his
particular office by the bishops. At the king’s order, Queen Constance
stationed herself before the doors of the church, lest the people should
slay them within it. Thus were they expelled from the bosom of Holy
Church. And as they were being led out, the queen, with a staff which
she held in her hand, struck out the eye of Stephen, who formerly was
her own confessor.16
Thereafter, when they had been taken out beyond the walls of the
city to a little hut where a great fire was kindled, they were burned,
except for one cleric and one nun; and with them were burned the evil
ashes of which we spoke earlier. The cleric and the nun, by divine will,
recovered their senses.16
82 Early A ppearances of Heresy

4. The Conversion of Heretics by

the Bishop of Arras-Cambrai
When Bishop Gerard I (1013-1048) of Arras-Cambrai1 discovered and
seized some alleged heretics in his diocese, he convened at Arras the synod
which is described in the following passage. Subsequently he sent a copy of
the proceedings to a fellow bishop, designated only by the initial R in the
covering letter, in which Gerard comments that certain suspects whom “R.”
had previously interrogated and released had, indeed, been heretics, and
they, emboldened by their escape, had extended their activities to the vicinity
of Arras. Detected there, they had resisted all efforts to obtain confessions
but some of their followers had revealed their doctrines in part.2 The origi¬
nals of both the report of the synod and the letter are lost, but not before
they had been published by Luc d’Achery in 1677;3 all subsequent editions
are based on his work. We have followed Fredericq in omitting part of the
text but have summarized the omitted portion. For discussions of the episode,
see Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 60-67;
Edouard de Moreau, Histoire de Veglise en Belgique, II, 410-14; and Russell,
Dissent and Reform, pp. 22-27; as well as the studies cited here in the notes.
The translation is from Acta sty nodi Atrebatensi a Gerardo Cameracensi
et Atrebatensi episcopo celeb rata anno 1025, in Paul Fredericq, Corpus
documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae (5 vols.,
Ghent, 1899-1902), I, 2-5, by permission of the publisher, Martinus Nijhoff.

1025
In the year of our Lord 1025,4 the eighth indiction, while Gerard
presided over the church of Cambrai and that of the city of Arras, it
came about that after Christmas and Epiphany had been observed with
solemn ceremony in the see of Cambrai, in accordance with the custom
annually followed he was to stay for several days in the see of Arras.
There, while he was performing ecclesiastical ceremonies appropriate to
the time, he was informed that certain men had come to that locality
from Italy. These men were introducing new heretical doctrines, by
which they were endeavoring to overturn teaching supported by evan¬
gelical and apostolic authority; they set forth a certain way of right¬
eousness and asserted that men were purified by it alone and that there
was no other sacrament in the Church whereby they could be saved.
On hearing these things, the lord bishop commanded that the men be
sought out and brought before him when found. They secretly prepared
for flight when they learned the reason for the search, but were thwarted
by the magistrates and dragged into the bishop’s presence. Since he was
4. Heretics at Arras 83
then very busy in finishing other matters, for the moment he put only
a few questions about their faith and, perceiving that they were in the
grip of certain errors of perverse doctrine, ordered that they be held in
custody until the third day. And for the following day he imposed a fast
on clerics and monks in the hope that divine grace might grant the
prisoners recovery of understanding of the Catholic faith.
Then on the third day, which was a Sunday, the bishop in full regalia,
together with his archdeacons bearing crosses and the Gospels and sur¬
rounded by a great throng of all the clergy and people, proceeded to the
Church of the Blessed Mary to hold a synod. After the antiphon
Resurget Deus (let God arise) had been sung, they completed the whole
of the psalm.5 Then the bishop seated himself in consistory with abbots,
monks, archdeacons, and others on either side, ranked according to
ecclesiastical office, and the men were brought from confinement and
stood before them.
To open the discussion, the bishop made some general remarks about
them to the people; then, turning to them, he asked, “Just what is your
teaching, law, and religious observance, and who is the originator of
your doctrine?” They replied that they were the followers of one Gundulf,
an Italian,6 by whom they had been instructed in the precepts of the
Gospels and of the apostles; they accepted no scripture other than this
but to this they held in word and act.
It had, in fact, come to the bishop’s attention that they utterly abhorred
the mystery of baptism, rejected the sacrament of the body and blood
of Christ, denied that penance was of any use to those who lapsed into
sin after baptism, held the Church as naught, despised lawful marriage,
saw no gift of special power in holy confessors, and thought that no one
but the apostles and martyrs should be venerated.
The bishop questioned them about tenets of this sort. “How,” he
asked, “can your belief in evangelical and apostolic precepts be recon¬
ciled with your contrary preaching? For the text of the Gospel says that
when Nicodemus, prince of the Jews, avowed that through signs and
miracles he believed Jesus to have come from God, the Lord forthwith
replied that no one could merit the kingdom of heaven by this gift of
confession alone unless he ‘be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’7
And, indeed, you must either fully accept the mystery of regeneration8
or deny the words of the Gospel, since it is undisputed that Jesus spoke
these words.”
 Early Appearances of Heresy
44
To these remarks they replied as follows Anyone who chooses
examine carefully our law and doctrine, which we have learned from
our master, sees it to be contrary neither to evangelical principles nor to
aDOstolic
apostolic sanctions. For it is of this sort: to abandon the world, to
restrain our flesh from carnal longings, bread by the labor of
our hands, to wish harm to none, to show loving-kindness to all who are
gripped by zeal for our way of life. Therefore, if this way of righteous¬
ness (justitia) be observed, there is no need of baptism; if it be trans¬
gressed, baptism does not avail for salvation. This is the whole of our
justification to which the practice of baptism can add nothing more, for
within its bounds are included every evangelical and apostolic precept.
Moreover, if anyone says that any sacrament inheres in baptism, he is
rebutted on three counts: first, because of the evil life of the ministrants
it can offer no salutary cleansing to those who are to be baptized; second,
because whatever sins are disavowed at the font are repeated in later
life; third, because the will of another, the faith of another, the con¬
fession of another obviously can never affect the child who has no wish
or desire to cooperate, who is ignorant of faith and heedless of his safety
and advantage, and within whom there can be no plea for regeneration,
no confession of faith.”
[At this point, the record gives the bishop’s discourse on various
errors.9 Perhaps the errors of which he spoke had been discovered by
earlier interrogation. There is some discrepancy between what the ac¬
cused had so far admitted in open examination and the greater range of
matters on which the bishop touched, as there is also between the content
of his discourse and the subsequent abjuration by the group. The bishop
spoke of: (1) denial of baptism of water but use of a custom of washing
each other’s feet, (2) rejection of the Eucharist, (3) denial that a church
is the house of God, (4) denial of the altar and the use of incense, (5)
objection to bells (signis) in churches, (6) scorn of ordination, (7) dep¬
recating burial in holy ground because priests insisted on it only for
their own gain, (8) denial of the efficacy of penance, (9) opposition to
prayers for the dead, (10) objections to marriage, (11) finding no valid¬
ity in confession, (12) objection to psalmody in church services, (13)
jeering at veneration of the Cross, (14) spurning images of Christ on the
Cross or of the saints because they were only the work of human hands,
(15) opposing tile hierarchy, (16) holding a false notion of justification.
To all of these points the bishop addressed his rebuttal.]
4. Heretics at Arras 85
In truth, at such words from the lord bishop those who shortly before
seemed to themselves to be invincible in argument and incapable of
restraint by any manner of speech, stood as though stunned by the
gravity of the [bishop’s] discourse and the manifest power of God, and
as if they had never learned any argument which could be employed in
refutation. Silenced, their sole response to all points was the avowal that
the sum of Christian salvation now seemed to them to consist only in
the explanation which the bishop had just given. To them the bishop
made rejoinder: “If you believe these things are so, put aside the perfidy
of so much unbelief and with us condemn and anathematize this heresy,
together with its authors unless they return to their senses.”
Then the bishop and all who were there—abbots, archdeacons, and
all the clergy together—with the approval of the people began thus:
“This heresy and all who profess it, which today has been found to have
conspired against the true and catholic Church—to wit, which holds
that baptism will not avail toward washing away the stain of original sin,
or of sins actually committed; which professes that sins can never be re¬
mitted through penance; which considers God’s Holy Church, the most
sacred altar, and the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood to be
nothing more than that which the eyes of the flesh behold, and looks
upon the latter as a dirty transaction for gain; and which shuns legitimate
marriages—this we condemn and anathematize together with all who
profess it.” [The remainder of this passage is a statement of the orthodox
belief on each of the points just enumerated.]
Since those who a little while before were in the grip of heretical in¬
fidelity could not well understand what was being said in Latin, through
an interpreter they heard in the vernacular the sentence of excommuni¬
cation and made the profession of holy faith, after which, by a similar
oath, they confessed openly that they both abjured what had been con¬
demned and believed what was believed by the faithful. Then to confirm
the avowal of their faith, each of them made a certain mark in the form
of a cross in this fashion 4«, so that if they held to this faith this sign
might be presented for them at the Last Judgment for their salvation,
but if they should violate it, it would bring about their confusion.
And so, all united in returning thanks to God and, after they had
been given the boon of benediction by the lord bishop, returned happily
to their own homes.
86 Early Appearances of Heresy

5. Heretics at Monforte
A heretical group at Monforte, a fortified village south of Turin,1 is the
subject of the following account.2 Of its author, Landulf, little is known,
and there is no agreement among scholars about the credibility of his chroni¬
cle. He was a member of the clergy in Milan, active during the latter half
of the eleventh century, when that city and province were torn by party
strife, and he belonged to the group who opposed both the imperial preten¬
sions of Henry IV (1056-1105) and the reform program of Pope Gregory
VII (1073-1087). In his Introduction (pp. iii-viii) the editor of Landulf’s
history summarizes the points of view of various scholars over the past two
centuries and concludes that Landulf was a man of his time and mirrored
in his work the tempestuous character of life about him.
Various dates ranging from 1028 to 1040 have been suggested for this
occurrence. We follow Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi
Gregoriani, II, 68-74, the best discussion of the heresy. See also Russell,
Dissent and Reform, pp. 35-38; and C. Violante, La societa milanese nell’etd
precomunale, pp. 176-86. There is a brief biography of Landulf by O. Kurth,
Landulf der Aeltere von Mailand; and an Italian translation of his chronicle,
with an introduction on the author and his work by A. Visconti, La Cronica
milanese di Landolfo Seniore (Milan, 1928).
The account which follows is translated, by permission of Nicola Zanichelli
Editore, from Landulphi senioris Mediolanensis historiae libri quatuor n.27,
ed. by Alessandro Cutolo, in L. A. Muratori, Rerum italicarum sc rip tores,
new ed. (Bologna, 1900), Vol. IV, pt. 2, pp. 67-69.

circa 1028
At this time, when Bishop Aribert3 had visited nearly all the suf¬
fragans of the cities of the Blessed Ambrose, for the sake of whom he
had traversed Italy,4 exhorting them to all good works, he came at length
to Turin, accompanied by a large number of devoted clerics and a troop
of brave knights. When he had established himself there for several
days, preaching to the bishop and clergy of the city and the people of the
whole town6 with prophetic and apostolic admonitions, as was fitting in
so great a man, he heard of a strange heresy which had recently taken
root in the citadel6 above the place called Monforte.7
Now when Aribert had heard of this, he ordered that one of the
heretics from the stronghold be brought before him so that he might
obtain more precise knowledge of the matter. The man [Gerard], having
been brought into his presence, stood with eager countenance ready to
answer all questions, his mind fully prepared for suffering, happy if he
were to end his life in the severest torture. Then Aribert, on seeing the
J. Heretics at Monforte 87
fellow to be imbued with so much fixity of purpose, began to question
him earnestly and in due order about the life, customs, and faith of these
people. So, after permission was given to him and silence was enjoined,
Gerard arose, saying: “To God Omnipotent—the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit—I give boundless thanks that you take the pains to
examine me so carefully. And may He who knew you from the begin¬
ning in the loins of Adam grant that you live unto Him and die unto
Him and be glorified, reigning with Him forever and ever. I will lay bare
to you my life and the faith of my brethren in the same spirit in which
you inquire into them. We esteem virginity above all else, although we
have wives. He who is virgin keeps his virginity, but he who has lost it,
after receiving permission from our elder (nostro maiori), may observe
perpetual chastity. No one knows his wife carnally, but carefully treats
her as his mother or sister. We never eat meats. We fast continually and
pour forth prayers unceasingly; our leaders 8 pray always, day and night,
in turn, that no hour may pass without prayer. We hold all our posses¬
sions in common with all men. None of us ends his life without torments,
that we may thus avoid eternal torments. We believe in and confess the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe truly that we are bound
and loosed by those who have the power of binding and loosing. We
hold to both the Old and the New Testament and to the holy canons, and
we read them daily.”
When Gerard had said these and other things with extreme cleverness,
to some persons they seemed to be great and terrible. Notwithstanding,
Bishop Aribert, recognizing his astuteness and evil genius from certain
phrases he had uttered, commanded him to make clear exactly what he
and his associates believed, more particularly what they believed about
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and ordered him to explain
each point separately.
On hearing this, Gerard gladly began: “What I called the Father, He
is God eternal, who made all things from the beginning and in whom
all things have their being. What I called the Son, He is the soul of man
beloved of God. What I called the Holy Spirit, He is the comprehension
of divine truths by which all things are separately governed.”
To these statements Aribert answered, “My friend, what do you say of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary—the Word of
the Father?” He replied, “He whom you call Jesus Christ is the soul of
man, in the flesh born of the Virgin Mary, that is, born of Sacred
88 Early Appearances of Heresy

Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the devout comprehension of the Sacred

Scriptures
.”9 Aribert: “Why do you take wives except to beget offspring,
whence stems the human race?” He replied, “If the whole human race
should agree not to experience corruption, the human race would be
begotten like bees without coition.’” Aribert: “In whom is absolution
10

of our sins—in the pope, in a bishop, or in any priest?” He replied, “We

do not have that Roman pontiff, but another, who daily visits our
brothers, scattered throughout the world, and when he brings God to us,
pardon of our sins is granted, with the greatest piety.” Aribert: “How
does your life end in torments?” He replied, “If we expire through tor¬
ments inflicted upon us by the wicked, we rejoice; but if nature at any
time brings us near death, the one nearest us kills us in some way before
we yield up our soul.”
When Aribert with ears intent had heard all these things, silently
marveling, while others too shook their heads in wonder, he inquired of
Gerard whether he believed in the Catholic faith which the Roman
Church holds and whether he believed that He is truly the Son of God,
who was bora of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, and that it is
the true body and the true blood which a Catholic priest, though a
sinner, sanctifies through the word of God. He replied, “There is no
other pontiff beside our Pontiff, though he is without tonsure of the
head or any sacred mystery.” 11

This hearing made it clear that the truth of the matter was in accord
with their reputation. Aribert sent a very large body of knights to
*

Monforte and seized all whom he could find there, among them the
countess of that stronghold, as being infected with this heresy. When he
had brought them to Milan and had with the help of his priests labored
for many days, greatly desiring to restore her to the Catholic faith, he
was grievously troubled by the fear that the folk of this part of Italy
might be contaminated by heresy. But those most wicked persons, who
had come into Italy from some unknown part of the world, daily, albeit
secretly, like good priests were implanting false principles wrenched from
Holy Scripture in the countryfolk who had gathered in the city to see
them. When the leading citizens of the city had learned of this, they
caused a huge pyre to be lit and the Cross of the Lord to be set up
nearby. Then, over the protests of Aribert, they had all these persons
brought out, and offered them the following choice: if they abandoned
all perfidy and chose to adore the Cross and to confess the faith which
5. Heretics at Monforte 89

the whole world holds, they would be saved; if not, they would be
thrown alive into the flames and burned. What happened was that some
came to the Cross of the Lord, confessed the true Catholic faith, and
thus were saved; many, however, covering their faces with their hands,
leaped into the flames and, dying piteously, were reduced to pitiable
ashes.

6. Heretics at Chalons-sur-Marne
and Bishop Wazo
The passage translated here is of interest because of the affirmation of
“Manichaean” doctrines among heretics in the diocese of Chalons, even
more because of the strong argument offered by Bishop Wazo of Liege
(1042-1048) against the execution of heretics. Wazo, who was highly re¬
garded by his contemporaries and whose advice was sought on occasion by
Emperor Henry III, was an advocate of the independence of the Church
from secular control as well as of toleration in matters of faith.1 His state¬
ment about tolerance was made in response to a letter from Roger II, bishop
of Chalons-sur-Marne (1043-1062), and the date therefore falls between
1043 and 1048—probably closer to the latter year. The presumed author of
that portion of the Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium in which it is preserved
was Anselm, canon and later dean of the cathedral at Liege, who took up
the story of the bishops of Liege in the mid-seventh century, where Heriger,
abbot of Lobbes (d. 1007), had left it. Anselm’s continuation has consider¬
able value for the history of his own time. Brief biographical notices on
Heriger and Anselm will be found in Histoire littiraire de la France, VII,
194-208, 472-76. For discussion of this episode, see Ilarino da Milano, “Le
eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 74-76; and Russell, Dissent and
Reform, pp. 38-40. The latter also describes other versions of the Gesta
(p. 278, n. 36).
The following is translated, by permission of the publisher, Anton Hierse-
mann, and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, from Herigeri et Anselmi
Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium n.62-64, ed. by Rudolp Koepke, in Monu¬
menta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, VIII, 226-28.

1043-1048
Moreover, apostolic sublimity deemed our bishop [Wazo] worthy of
frequent correspondence, which he was wont to receive most reverently
and to answer humbly, if it happened that a question was put to him
therein. Various bishops, too, appealed to their distinguished colleague
by letter, in which they drew upon his wisdom in various matters. No
90 Early Appearances of Heresy

one of them, provided his questions bore upon some useful subject, was
refused a careful reply to his inquiries. The bishop of Chalons, among
them, felt the need to consult His Holiness because of a danger to the
souls entrusted to his care, a danger which he outlined in his letter as
follows: In a certain region of his diocese there were some countryfolk
who eagerly followed the evil teachings of Manichaeans and frequented
their secret conventicles, in which they engaged in I know not what
filthy acts, shameful to mention, in a certain religious rite. And they
lyingly asserted that the Holy Spirit is given by a sacrilegious imposition
of hands; to buttress their faith in this error, they most falsely proclaimed
Him to have been sent by God only in their heresiarch Mani, as though
Mani were none other than the Holy Spirit. By this they fell into that
blasphemy which, according to the Voice of Truth, can be forgiven
neither here nor in the hereafter.2
These people, it was said, constrained whomever they could to join
their number. They abhorred marriage and not only avoided the eating
of meat but also considered it wicked to kill any animal at all, assuming
as justification for their error the command of God against killing in
the Old Law. If it happened that any ignorant, tongue-tied persons were
enrolled among the partisans of this error, it was stoutly asserted that at
once they became more eloquent than even the most learned Catholics,
so that it almost seemed as if the really true eloquence of the wise could
be overcome by their garrulity.3 The bishop also added that he personally
was more grieved over the daily seduction of others than by the damna¬
tion of these persons.
The troubled bishop asked the advice of the sure repository of wisdom
as to the best procedure to adopt in dealing with such persons: whether
or not the sword of earthly authority should be directed against them
lest, were they not exterminated,4 the whole lump be corrupted by a little
leaven. In reply, our bishop writes, among other things:
“In regard to those of whom you wrote, their error is indeed evident,
brought into the open by the holy fathers of old and confuted by their
brilliant discussion. For, to pass over the most insensate blasphemies
with which they deceive themselves in respect of the Holy Spirit, your
Esteemed Self may perceive how they go out of their way to entangle
themselves with numerous incongruities, by misinterpreting the com
mandment of the Lord which in the Old Law says, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’5
Unless they realize that therein only homicide was forbidden, they would
6. Heretics at Chalons-sur-Marne 91

find forbidden to them in like manner the use of those things which they
think it lawful to eat, such as grain, vegetables, and wine. These things,
as is their nature, have grown from seeds consigned to the earth in their
own kind of life, and, unless destroyed in their prime, they could not
serve the needs of mankind. Even if we make no mention of worldly
authors, the Psalmist is witness to this fact when he says: ‘And he de¬
stroyed their vineyards with hail.’6 So too the Apostle: ‘Senseless man,
that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first.’7 And Truth
himself says, ‘Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself
remaineth alone.’8 It stands to reason, therefore, that of necessity they
acknowledge that what manifestly can be killed by accident has had life.
Therefore, let them choose what they will: either let them believe the
Catholic interpretation, that only in respect of man was it written, ‘Thou
shalt not kill,’ and with us lawfully avail themselves of the abundance of
beasts for slaughter; or, if they insist on denying themselves this, we, by
the very terms of their own error, will deny to them the use of bread,
vegetables, and other things of this sort, because these things, did they
not suffer death after their own fashion, could nowise be adapted to
support human fallacies.
“Although Christian piety despises these tenets and although it con¬
demns the sacrilege of the Arian heresy,9 nevertheless, in emulation of
our Savior, who, mild and humble of heart, did not come to wrangle or
contend but rather to suffer abuse, shameful treatment, blows, and
finally death on the Cross, we are commanded for a time to bear with
such things in some measure. For, as the Blessed Gregory says, no Abel
will maintain his innocence whom the malice of a Cain has not harassed,
nor will the grape dissolve into the savor of the wine unless it is crushed
by the heel.10 Moreover, to be prepared for doing what the merciful and
compassionate Lord, who does not judge sinners straightway but waits
patiently for repentance, desires to be done about such persons, let us
hearken to what He deemed fitting to teach His disciples—nay, rather
us—when in His Gospel He expounded the parable of the field of wheat
and the cockle. He said: ‘The man that soweth the good seed in his field
is the Son of Man. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom.
And the field is the world. And the man, the enemy, that sowed the
cockle is the devil. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one.
But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels.’11
What, moreover, but the role of preachers is signified by the servants
92 Early A ppearances of Heresy

who wish to gather up the cockle when it first appears? Do not preach¬
ers, as they seek to separate good from evil in Holy Church, attempt as it
were to root out the cockle from the good seed of the field? But with
notable discretion that Goodman of the house restrains their reckless
zeal, saying: ‘Do not so; lest perhaps gathering up the cockle you root up
the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and
in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the
cockle and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my
bam.’12 What does the Lord reveal by these words but His patience,
which He wishes His preachers to display to their erring fellow men,
particularly since it may be possible for those who today are cockle,
tomorrow to be converted and be wheat?
“The fervor of spiritual zeal burning in your breast for souls deceived
by devilish fraud shows that you surely are numbered among these
servants. Out of this zeal you strive with the hoe of judicial decision to
rid the grainfield of cockle, that the good be not corrupted by evil. But
lest you do this hastily, lest it be done before its time, the holy text is
rather to be obeyed, so that although we think we are practicing right¬
eousness by punishing transgressors, whose impiety is veiled under
semblance of strict life, we do no disservice to Him, who desires not the
death of sinners nor rejoices in the damnation of the dying, but rather
knows how to bring sinners back to repentance through His patience and
long-suffering. Therefore, heeding the words of the Maker, let the
decision of the arena wait; let us not seek to remove from this life by the
sword of secular authority those whom God himself, Creator and
Redeemer, wishes to spare, as He has revealed, to the end that they may
turn again to His will from the snares of the devil in which they were
entrapped. Thus, because it is indubitably proper for us to reserve such
persons to the last harvest of that Goodman of the house, for whatever
He may command His harvesters to do about them, so also, for our part,
it behooves us to await the harvesters in fear and trembling. For per¬
chance that harvest may disclose to be wheat some of those who grow as
cockle in the field of this world, and it is possible for omnipotent God
to make those whom we now consider to be enemies of the way of the
Lord superior even to us in that heavenly home. Certainly we read that
Saul, raging more than all the others, assisted at the stoning of the
blessed first martyr, Stephen, and the martyr apostle now rejoices to
recognize as a superior apostle the one who once was his persecutor.
6, Heretics at Ch&lons-sur-Marne 93

“Moreover, we must meanwhile bear in mind that we who are called

bishops do not receive at ordination the sword which belongs to the
secular power and for that reason we are enjoined by God our Father not
to do unto death but rather to quicken unto life. There is, however,
another point about the aforesaid schismatics which should be care¬
fully heeded, one of which you are not at all unmindful. They and those
associating with them should be deprived of Catholic communion. Let
it be officially and publicly announced to all others, so that, heeding
the warning of the prophet, they may leave their midst and eschew their
most unclean sect, for ‘He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled with it.’ ” 13
So very earnestly did the man of God, after the example of the Blessed
Martin, strive to impress these ideas that in a measure he curbed the
habitual headstrong madness of the French, who yearned to shed blood.
For he had heard that they identified heretics by pallor alone, as if it
were certain fact that those who have a pale complexion are heretics.14
Thus, through error coupled with cruelty, many truly Catholic persons
had been killed in the past.
This being the situation and because nothing of like reasonableness
can be advanced in rebuttal of such clear reasoning supported by Gospel
decree, let them to whom it is unknown see how reprehensible15 was
the deed when certain partisans of a comparable sect had been seized at
Goslar. After much discussion of their vagaries and a proper excom¬
munication for obstinacy in error, they were also sentenced to be
hanged.1* When we carefully investigated the course of this examination,
we could learn no other reason for their condemnation than that they
refused to obey some one of the bishops when he ordered them to kill
a chicken. For I can truly say, and I will not keep silent, that if it had
happened in his time, our Wazo would have agreed not at all with this
verdict, after the example of the Blessed Martin, who, in order to inter¬
cede for Priscillianists condemned by edict of the depraved Emperor
Maximin on advice of the priests who basely flattered him, preferred to
incur a slur on his most excellent virtue than to be unsolicitous even for
heretics who were soon to die.17 We say these things not because we seek
to defend the error of heretics, but to show that we do not approve of
that which is nowhere sanctioned in the Sacred Laws.
 The Development of Heresy
from the Late Eleventh to
the Mid-Twelfth Century
7. Ramihrdus: Heretic or Reformer?
Throughout most of the second half of the twelfth century, the years of
papal reform and of the First Crusade, the sources are devoid of references
to heretical movements akin to those of earlier years.1
One episode throws light on the notion of what constituted heresy in the
minds of some contemporaries affected by the policies of Gregory VII and
raises also the question of the relationship of religious dissent to the changing
patterns of a society being altered by economic and political growth. In
Cambrai, a newly elected bishop had accepted investiture from the emperor
and, in consequence, was denied papal consecration, pending an investiga¬
tion.2 At the same time, civic protest against the temporal power of the
bishop—one of the first of the communal uprisings—had embittered and
complicated the situation. Our sources give no positive evidence of a link
between what was here called heresy and the social tumult; but that the
Gregorian reform program was involved is strongly suggested by the pope’s
action in ordering an investigation when it was reported that a man who
denounced simony and clerical immorality had been burned as a heretic.
On the situation in Cambrai, see Alfred Cauchie, La Querelle des investi¬
tures dans les dioceses de Liege et de Cambrai, I: Les riformes gregoriennes
et les agitations reactionnaires (1075-1092), pp. vii-xcii, 1-12;3 W. Reinecke,
Geschichte der Stadt Cambrai bis zur Erteilung der “Lex Godefridi,” 1227,
pp. 106 ff.; and Moreau, Histoire de Veglise en Belgique, II, 74-76, 124, 26,
411. There are brief discussions of the religious implications in Ilarino da
Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 80-82; and Russell,
Dissent and Reform, pp. 43-44.
The translation is from an anonymous chronicle presumably written in
1133, the third book of which is devoted to a life of Bishop Gerard:
Chronicon S. Andreae Castri-Cameracesii ih.3, ed. by L. C. Bethmann, in
Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scrip tores, VII, 540; by permission of
the publisher, Anton Hiersemann, and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

1076 or 1077
It happened after this 4 that the bishop stopped at the village of
Lambres,6 which was then under his jurisdiction, and remained there for
96 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

a short time. It was reported to him by some informants that a man

named Ramihrdus, living in the adjacent village of Schere,6 was laying
down doctrine not consonant with the faith and by his teaching had
already gathered around him many disciples and a very numerous group
of both sexes who were in agreement with him. The man was promptly
summoned for inquiry into his life and teaching. The bishop heard his
reply to the charges, then ordered him brought to his court at Cambrai,
where fuller inquiry might be made into these matters.
And so, on the designated day, the man was led before the abbots and
learned clergy who had been convened and was questioned about the
Catholic faith, but in all things he avowed the precepts of the true faith.
When he was directed by the bishop to partake of the sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper to confirm this, he refused, asserting that he would take
it from none of the abbots or priests, not even from the bishop himself,
because they were all deeply involved in the crime of simony or other
greedy practice. All were enraged by these words and declared that he
should be considered a heresiarch; there the matter was left.
However, some of the bishop’s attendants and a number of other
persons took the man away and thrust him into a hut. Putting a torch
to the hut, they burned him, unresisting, fearless, and (so it is said)
prostrate in prayer. Such was the end of this man who had done and
taught many things.7 But many of his adherents collected some of his
bones and ashes for themselves. In some towns, numerous members of
this group persist even today, among whom are to be counted those
who practice the craft of weaving.8

8. The Heresy of Tanchelm

The career of Tanchelm (or Tanchelm) in the Low Countries was described
only by his enemies, especially the clergy of Utrecht, whose attitude colors
all other accounts by contemporaries. Their portrait of him as an unprin¬
cipled and debauched demagogue, making extreme claims to sanctity and
arousing the masses to violent rejection of the Church, was occasionally
softened in some of its details by modern scholars and finally has been
challenged in every point by recent interpretations. As a result of revisionist
studies, Tanchelm is now presented as probably a monk and priest, one of
the wandering preachers whose activities were so prominent in the early
twelfth century; his theme, the furthering of the Gregorian reforms. Tan-
chelm’s activities included a trip to Rome about 1112-1113 in connection
with a proposed transfer of jurisdiction over certain areas from the diocese
8. The Heresy of Tanchelm 97
of Utrecht, the see of which was then vacant, to the bishop of Therouanne. i

This was a move in the struggle between Louis VI of France and the
German emperor, Henry V, with some significance also for the strife
between the emperor and the pope. Count Robert II of Flanders (1093-
1111), who was a vassal and supporter of Louis VI, initiated it to weaken
the clergy of Utrecht, who were partisans of the emperor against France
and against the papacy. The proposed transfer was rejected by Paschal II.
On his return to Flanders, Tanchelm again took up his preaching and was
accused of heresy. The wrath of the clergy of Utrecht at the attempt to
interfere with their diocese accounts for the vitriolic and probably untruthful
accusations of personal immorality hurled at Tanchelm in their letter which
is translated here, which has, moreover, such close parallels with the tale of
a “prophet” and his following told by Gregory of Tours five centuries earlier
that it seems undoubtedly to have been influenced by that old story.2
Of the many studies of Tanchelm and his heresy written from various
points of view may be cited H. Q. Janssen, “Tanchelijn,” Annales de
VAcademie roycde d*archeologie de Belgique, 2d ser.. Ill (1867) 347-450;
L. J. M. Philippen, “De HI. Norbertus en de strijd tegen Tanchelmisme
te Antwerpen,” Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis, XXV (1934), 251-88; and
Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium,, pp. 35-38. The recent critical
investigations which have revised the interpretation of Tanchelm are those
of De Smet, Mohr, and Russell (see nn. 1 and 2).
Many of the sources are gathered in Fredericq, Corpus, I, 15-18, 22-29.
The letter by the clergy of Utrecht, however, is translated here (part A),
by permission of the publisher, Weidmannsche Verlags Buchhandlung, from
a critical edition which differs slightly from the text in Fredericq. It is
“Traiectenses Fridericum I archiepiscopum Coloniensem hortantus, quod
ceperit Tanchelmum haereticum eiusque socios, Manassen et Everwacherum,
ne eos dimittat,” No. 168 in the Codex Udalrici, ed by P. Jaffe, in Monu-
menta Bambergensis, pp. 296-300. Part B is translated, by permission of
the publisher, Anton Hiersemann, and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
from Sigiberti Gemblacensis chronographia: Continuatio Praemonstratensis,
ed. by L. C. Bethmann, in Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, VI,
449.

A. AN ACCUSATION BY THE CANONS OF UTRECHT

1112-1114
To their lord and venerable father, Frederick, archbishop [1100-1131]
of the holy church of Cologne, from the humble church of Utrecht, out
of true affection the most devout prayers with protestations of due
obedience.
We give thanks to Your Holiness, most venerable Father, that out of
paternal pity you have grieved for our affliction and have checked the
98 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

career and onslaught of our Antichrist, who disturbs and blasphemes

the Church of Christ; who opened his mouth against heaven and against
the sacraments of the Church and dared to revive a heresy once silenced
by the decrees of the Holy Fathers. For, puffed up by the spirit of pride,
which is the root of every heresy and apostasy, he declared that the pope
was naught, archbishops naught, bishops naught, priests and clerics
naught. He shook the pillars of the Church of God to their foundations;
he even dared to split the rock of our faith, that is Christ, holding that
the Church consisted only of himself and his followers; like the Donatist
heretics, who argued that the Church existed only in Africa, he sought
to limit the Church—that Church which Christ desired and received
from the Father, “Gentiles for his inheritance and the utmost parts of the
earth for his possessions”3—to Tanchelmites alone.
Now, indeed, Holy Father, give ear to our cries of distress and be alert
to the precursor of Antichrist who now traces the very path, in exactly
the course that the Antichrist will follow. First in the coastal provinces
he injected the venom of his wickedness into an untutored people of
weak faith. Gradually he began to spread his errors by way of matrons
and harlots whose intimacies, confidential conversation, and private
couch he was most willing to enjoy. Through them he also entangled
the husbands in the snares of his iniquity. Afterwards he no longer
preached in hidden places and in bedrooms but upon the rooftops and
delivered his sermons in the open fields to a multitude thronging about
him on all sides. He put on the pomp of a monarch going out to harangue
the people, attended by a retinue who bore banner and sword before him
as though he went forth to speak amidst royal trappings. On his words
the deluded people hung as if he were an angel of God. But he, being in
fact the angel of Satan, proclaimed that the churches of God were to
be reckoned as houses of ill repute, that the function of priests at the
Lord’s table was worthless, fit rather to be called pollution than sacra¬
ment, that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the merits and
sanctity of the ministers. But hear the words of St. Augustine: “The Lord
Christ sent His betrayer, whom He called the devil—one who, before
betraying the Lord, could not even keep faith about the Lord’s purse—
with the other apostles to preach the Kingdom of Heaven, in order to
prove that the gifts of God come to those who receive them with faith,
even though he through whom they receive them be such as Judas.” 4
And again Augustine: “If, in administering the sacraments, the merits
8. The Heresy of Tanchelm 99
of the giver and recipient are to be considered, let it be the merit of
God giving and of my conscience receiving; for these two things, His
goodness and my faith, are not in doubt to me. Why do you interpose
yourself, of whom I can know nothing certain? Permit me to say, ‘I trust
in God.’ For if I trust in you, how am I assured that you have done
nothing wrong this night? ” B

In ranting about these and like matters, that man [Tanchelm] warned
the people against partaking of the sacrament of the body and blood of
the Lord and also forbade paying tithes to the ministers of the Church.
To this he easily persuaded those who were already willing, for he
preached only those things which he knew would please, either by their
novelty or by the predisposition of the people.
He attained great successes in iniquity and then went so far in his
wickedness that the wretched man even proclaimed himself God; for he
declared that if Christ is God because He had received the Holy Spirit,
he himself was no less God in exactly the same way,4 inasmuch as he
had received the fullness of the Holy Spirit. He carried this nonsense so
far in his impertinence and some people so worshiped divinity in him
that he could distribute his bath water to those most foolish persons, to
be drunk as a blessing, as a sacrament that would most sacredly and
efficaciously conduce to health of body and salvation of soul.
At the same time, also, when casting about for a new device in his
search for novelty, he ordered a certain statue of St. Mary (how the
mind is appalled at the mere mention!) carried into the midst of the
throng. Then he stretched out his hand to that of the statue and by the
symbolism of that gesture he betrothed St. Mary to himself, sacrilegious¬
ly reciting the pledge and all those solemn words of betrothal as is the
common custom. “Behold,” he said, “dearly beloved, I have betrothed
the Virgin Mary to myself. Do you furnish the betrothal feast and the
expenses of the marriage.” He produced two chests, placing one at the
right, the other at the left hand of the statue. “Let men put their offerings
in this one, women in that. I shall then see in which sex burns the
greater love for me and my betrothed.” And lo! the utterly insane people
eagerly rushed forward with gifts and offerings. The women cast in ear¬
rings and necklaces and thus, with outrageous sacrilege, he collected an
enormous sum of money.7
Now, there is also a certain blacksmith, Manasses by name, who is
reported to have been arrested by you along with that wicked man. He,
100 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

in imitation of his utterly evil master, had founded a certain brother¬

hood, such as that commonly called a guild, in which he enrolled twelve
men to represent the twelve apostles and one lone woman to represent
the Blessed Mary. She, so they say, was taken by each of these twelve
in turn to confirm their brotherhood; to the outrage of the Most Holy
Virgin, she had carnal intercourse with each one in the vilest shame.
Also, a certain priest, Everwacher by name, apostatized from the
priestly office and went over to the teaching of this abominable man.
He followed him to Rome, where he sought to have the maritime regions
—that is, a fourth part of our diocese—transferred by authority of the
lord pope to the episcopate of Therouanne of the kingdom of France.
This man, too, we have rejoiced to hear, has been arrested by Your
Holiness. The same priest, a thoroughgoing supporter of Tanchelm, has
usurped the tithes belonging to the brethren of the Church of St. Peter
and by force of arms has ejected their priest from the altar and the
church.
Boundless, our lord, are the crimes of those men. Most of them we
have omitted for the sake of the brevity required in a letter. Be it
enough to have said in brief that divine matters are so contemptuously
treated that the holier a church is in reputation, the more despicable
do all hold it to be.
Inasmuch, Holy Father, as divine mercy, unable to tolerate further
dangers to its Church, has given these men into your hands, we beg
you, we implore you in the Lord, not to let them slip from your grasp.
If they do, we declare to you and unhesitatingly bear witness that there
will result further irreparable damage to our Church, and the ruin of
souls beyond number as well. Our lord, our Church will certainly suffer
the gravest misfortune if it should happen by any chance that they
escape, for their speech, in the words of the Apostle, “spreadeth like a
cancer,”8 and by its blandishment brings the souls of the simple to
LMTiiT! -[The letter concludes with a plea for action and a quotation

from St. Augustine to show the desirability of calling on secular princes

to intervene.]

B. tanchelm’s influence and his death

circa 1115
The citizens of the town [Antwerp] under the influence of a certain
8. The Heresy of Tanchelm 101
heretic, Tanchelm (or Tandem), had gradually broken with faith and
morals, because he, with remarkable subtlety (notwithstanding his status
as a layman, he was more clever of speech than many eloquent clerics),
taught that the lower grades of holy orders and the episcopal and priestly
ranks were of no value, and he denied that partaking of the body and
blood of Christ would be of any use for the salvation of the communi¬
cants.' He went around clothed in rich and gilded garments, his curled
locks bound with ribbons. With persuasive words and ostentatious feasts
he won the allegiance of followers, to the number of some three thousand
armed men, whom he employed to vent his murderous rage on those who
opposed him.10 His followers believed in and reverenced him to such a
degree that they drank the water in which he had bathed and carried it
off as a sacred relic. He was so incontinent and beastly that he violated
girls in the presence of their mothers and wives in the sight of their
husbands, asserting that this was a spiritual act.
At length, after much wickedness and many murders, he was put to
rest by a blow on the head, delivered by a priest while they were in
a boat.11 But even after his death his evil teachings could not easily be
rooted out. Therefore, through the good offices of the bishop, a church
with a considerable endowment was given by the clergy of that place to
be administered by Norbert,12 in the hope that by his salutary teaching
the heresy might be eradicated from their midst. And so it happened. For,
by his preaching alone, men and women were stung with remorse; they
brought out again the Lord’s body, which for ten years and more had
lain in chests and crannies, and through his teaching they gradually re¬
turned to holy faith.

9. “Manichaeans” near Soissons

The nature of the heresy which Guibert of Nogent describes in this passage
is not made entirely clear, despite the vividness of the author’s report, and
although Guibert had no doubt of its Manichaean character. It seems surely
to have been anticlerical, and there is an intimation of that desire to imitate
the apostolic life which is elsewhere so much in evidence. The episode also
reveals again the stories of immorality associated with heresy and shows
a rude folk justice being exercised when clerical authorities were uncertain
how to proceed. The date is fixed by a reference at the end of the passage
to a synod which was held at Beauvais in 1114. The question of heresy was
there put over to another synod, to be held at Soissons in January of the
102 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

following year, but by then the question had been settled, as Guibert relates,
by direct action.
Guibert was a scion of the lesser nobility of the region of Beauvais.
Early in life he became a monk and settled down to a serious study of
biblical and patristic literature. He became abbot of Nogent in 1104. Among
bis numerous writings, the Autobiography is of importance, partially because
of its novelty in the early twelfth century, but also for the picture it presents
of the intellectual, religious, and social life of northeastern France at the
time. Guibert had little use for Jews (on religious rather than ethnic grounds),
he looked with jaundiced eye on the attempts of commoners to establish
communes in the towns, especially Laon, and he cordially disliked the here¬
tics and those who protected them, notably John, count of Soissons. The
passage translated here is not always easy of interpretation, for Guibert’s
writing is “involved, pretentious, ‘full of rare and unusual terms,’ ” 1 but an
attempt has been made to render it into English that can be understood. For
the background of the life and work of Guilbert, Bourgin’s introduction to
his edition of the autobiography is excellent. A study by Bernard Monod,
Le Moine Guibert et son temps (1053-1124), emphasizes Guibert’s contri¬
bution to the cultural history of his time. The Autobiography has been
translated by C. C. Swinton Bland.
This episode is translated, by permission of Editions A. and J. Picard,
from Guibert de Nogent: Histoire de sa vie (1053-1124) m.xvii, ed. by
Georges Bourgin (Collection de textes pour servir a l’etude et a l’enseigne-
ment de l’histoire, XI [Paris, 1907]), pp. 212-15.

circa 1114
But since we are speaking of heretics, on whom this detestable man2
doted, there was a country fellow, Clement by name, who lived with his
brother Evrard at Bucy,3 a manor near Soissons. Clement was commonly
recognized as one of the leaders of his heresy. That vile count used to
assert of him that he acknowledged no man to be wiser. The heresy,
however, is not one that frankly defends its teaching, but, after being
condemned, spreads in secret by word of mouth.
The gist of it is reported to be this: They avow that the dispensation4
of the Son of the Virgin is only an illusion. They hold the baptism of
children not yet at the age of understanding to be worthless, no matter
who the sponsors; they call their own [baptism], which is performed by
I know not what long-winded circumlocutions, the Word of God. They
so abhor the mystery performed at our altar that they call the mouths of
all priests the mouth of hell. And if now and then they partake with
others of our sacrament, as a cloak for their heresy, they regard it as a
meal and they eat nothing else all day. They make no distinction between
9. "Manichaearts” near Soissons 103

consecrated cemeteries and other land. They condemn marriage and the
begetting of offspring through intercourse. And surely, wherever they
are scattered throughout the Latin world, you may see men living with
women but not under the name of husband and wife, and in such fashion
that man does not dwell with woman, male with female, but men are
known to lie with men, women with women; for among them it is un¬
lawful for men to approach women. They reject foods of all sorts which
are the product of coition.
They hold meetings in cellars and secret places, the sexes mingling
freely. When (qui) candles have been lighted, in the sight of all, light
women with bare buttocks (it is said) offer themselves to a certain one
lying behind them. Directly the candles are extinguished, they all cry out
together “Chaos!” and each one lies with her who first comes to hand.5
Now if it so happens that a woman has there been gotten with child,
as soon as the offspring is delivered, it is brought back to the same place.
A great fire is lit, and the child is thrown from hand to hand through the
flames by those sitting around the fire until it is dead. It is then reduced
to ashes; from the ashes bread is made, of which a morsel is given to
each as a sacrament. Once that has been eaten, it is very rarely that one
is brought back to his senses from that heresy.
If you will reread the various accounts of heresies by Augustine,6 you
will find that this resembles none more than that of the Manichaeans.
Though this heresy had its origin in former times among learned persons,
its dregs sank down to the countryfolk, who, boasting that they hold to
the way of life of the apostles, choose to read only their Acts.
The two men named above were, therefore, compelled to stand
examination by the most distinguished lord bishop of Soissons, Lisiard.7
When the bishop charged them with holding meetings outside the church
and with being heretics by common report among their neighbors,
Clement replied: “Have you not read the Gospel, my lord, where it is
written, ‘Blessed are the heretics (beati eritisy ”? 8—for, because he was
illiterate, he thought that eritis meant heretics. He also thought that
heretics were so called as being “inheritors” {hereditarily no doubt of
God. But when they were questioned as to what they believed, they
replied in a most Christian fashion; they did not, however, deny the
meetings. Now, because it is the nature of such persons to deny, while
secretly seducing the hearts of dullards, they were sentenced to the ordeal
of exorcised water.
104 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

The bishop had asked me, while this was in preparation to find out
their beliefs in private; and when I raised with them the question of infant
baptism, they said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”9
Since I saw how much iniquity among them lay hidden behind fair words,
I asked their views about those who are baptized in the faith of others.
Their reply was: “For God’s sake, pray do not ask us to probe so
deeply”; and likewise, to each separate subject mentioned, “We believe
everything that you say.” Then, calling to mind that verse on which the
Priscillianists once agreed: “Swear, truly or falsely, but betray not the
secret,” 101 said to the bishop: “Let them be taken to the ordeal which
has been prepared, because the witnesses who heard them teaching these
things are not present here.” For there was a certain matron whom
Clement had deluded within the year, and there was also a deacon who
had heard other evil matters from the tongue of the aforesaid individual.
And so the bishop celebrated Mass, and from his hand they received
the consecrated elements in these words, “Let the body and blood of
the Lord try you today.” When this was done, the most devout bishop
and the archdeacon Peter, a man of very sound faith who had scorned
the promises which they made to avoid being subjected to the ordeal,
proceeded to the water. With many tears, the bishop chanted the litany,
then performed the exorcism. Then the men took oath that they had
never believed or taught anything contrary to our faith. Clement, when
cast into the vat, floated on top like a stick, at which sight the whole
church was carried away with boundless joy. The report of this event had
brought together a great throng of both sexes, such as none of those
present recalled having seen. The other man, confessing his error but
still impenitent, was held in bonds with his convicted brother. Two
others, who were very obviously heretics, had come to the spectacle from
the village of Dormans 11 and they likewise were held.
Meanwhile, we proceeded to the Council of Beauvais to consult the
bishops about what should be done in this case. But during that time,
the faithful people, fearing clerical leniency, rushed to the prison, seized
the men, and having laid a fire under them, burnt them all together out¬
side the city. The people of God were righteously wrathful against them,
lest their cancer be spread.12
10. Heresy in Ivoy 105

10. Heresy in Ivoy, near Trier

The group of heretics discovered in the diocese of Trier has been linked
with Tanchelm because of their disdain of the sacraments,1 and for the same
reason they have been called followers of Berengar of Tours.2 There is, in
fact, too little specific information in the charges against them to guarantee
that either of these suggestions has merit, but there is illustrated here the
problem of proving and punishing heresy. The incident has been variously
dated from 1112 to 1122, the later date being more likely.3
The passage translated is taken, by permission of the publisher, Anton
Hiersemann, and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, from Gesta Treve-
rorum: Additamentum et continuatio prima 20, ed. by Georg Waitz, in
Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, VIII, 193.

1122 (?)
There is yet another memorable act of his4 which I happened to
witness and must mention. At that time in Ivoy,5 which lies within the
diocese of Trier, there were heretics who denied that the substance of
the bread and wine which priests bless on the altar is really changed
into the body and blood of Christ. They also said that the sacrament of
baptism of infants has no efficacy for salvation, and they professed
many other errors of various kinds which I think it wrong to hand down
to posterity. Four of them were brought before Bishop Bruno; two were
priests, two others laymen. One of the priests was called Frederick, the
other had two names, Dominic William; one of the laymen was named
Durand, the other Amalric.
While the bishop was engaged in questioning them and instructing
them in the principles of Christian teaching, Amalric escaped. But
Durand confessed voluntarily that he had, indeed, hitherto been among
those who practiced this wickedness but henceforth desired no part in it;
and he confirmed his words by oath upon relics of the saints which
were placed before him.
But one of the priests, Frederick, when summoned to a hearing, not
only did not deny but even asserted the truth of his belief, declaring that
he acted honestly and correctly. To him Bishop Bruno replied: “You,
who should have been a teacher of the faithful, ought to have preached
sound doctrine to all and to have curbed your infidel babbling. It is
clearer than day to all believers that you lied, since the Blessed Augustine
says: ‘Though it is not meet that Christ be actually torn by the teeth,
Christ himself desired that in the mystery of the Mass this bread and
106 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

this wine become His very body and blood through the consecration of
the Holy Spirit, to be mystically offered every day for the life of the
world. Just as true flesh was engendered from the Virgin through the
Holy Spirit without carnal intercourse, so through the same Holy Spirit
the very body of Christ may be mystically consecrated from the sub¬
stance of the bread and wine/ Also, in his letter “Concerning the
Catholic Faith,” the Blessed Augustine says: ‘Hold most firmly and
doubt not that the sacrament of faith and penitence, which is holy
baptism, suffices for the salvation of infants, who can neither believe of
their own volition nor do penance for the original sin which they bear,
so long as their age is not such as to be capable of reason.’ ” 6
After these and other appropriate passages of the same import had
been brought to the attention of all, and when, although he had been
soundly castigated by the assembled faithful, jointly and severally, and
had been urged to return to Christian truth, he [Frederick] refused to
yield, but chose rather in stubbornness of mind to stand fast in in¬
fidelity, sentence was loudly approved by all in the words of the Lord:
“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen
and the publican”;7 and they added, “Let him be degraded, and con¬
demned!” As this was happening and all were jostling together, the man
seized the chance to flee, hid himself amidst the assembled crowd, and
thus escaped. Then, when he had been sought without success, to put it
briefly, he was condemned in accordance with the penalties of the canons
that he who will not come to a hearing when summoned shall suffer the
same penalty in absence.8
The other one—that is, he who was called by two names to conceal the
infamy of this wickedness—was questioned as to whether he too was a
propagator of the aforesaid heresy. He testified that he had never pro¬
fessed it nor did he wish to. His accusers, on the contrary, affirmed and
testified that they had once happened unexpectedly upon conventicles
of the same heretics and had seen him worshiping with them. In fear
lest he should lose the honor of the priesthood if he were convicted, he
replied that to clear himself of this suspicion he would willingly accept
the verdict of a most searching test.
Everyone welcomed this declaration and he was directed to celebrate
Mass and to chant the Sacred Canon, which is called the Secreta or
Actio,9 in full voice just as the other parts, so that one who had pre¬
sumed to disparage the mystery of the precious body and blood of
10. Heresy in Ivoy 107
Christ might be tested by its virtue. Therefore, when the Mass was
underway and the moment came for him to receive the sacrament, the
bishop uttered words of solemn warning in this wise: “If with impious
mouth you have dared to babble that this life-giving sacrament of our
salvation which you hold in your hands is not truly the body and blood
of Christ, thus questioning its power, I utterly forbid you to dare to
receive it. If, however, this is not die fact, but you declare your orthodoxy,
you may receive it.” And he received it.
But I should not fail to record how this sacrament of redemption
entered his mouth to his own damnation. For while he was under the
stress of the investigation, with contrite heart he humbly implored
penance for his guilt from Almightly God, promising to keep himself
from future sins, and he obtained release from his present troubles. But
then, on his return home, he did not scruple to break his promises and
with greater pertinacity than before he encouraged the heresy which he
had foresworn, forgetting that since God is a just judge, strong and
forbearing, the more patiently He endures the sins of transgressors, the
more severely He punishes them. Thus it befell that the man rushed
from vice to vice, as has been written: “He that is filthy, let him be filthy
still.” 10 Seduced by the spirit of fornication, he was taken in adultery
not long afterward and suffered a death befitting his iniquity.

11. Henry of Le Mans

This item and Numbers 12-14 bear upon the activities of two men who grav¬
ely troubled the Church and whose influence far outlived them. They are
Henry, so-called of Le Mans or of Lausanne,1 and Peter of Bruys. The
present piece deals with Henry in the first appearance of his career, which
was to last some thirty years. At Le Mans, his welcome or, at least, the ac¬
ceptance of him by the clergy as an eccentric but highly popular preacher
soon turned to fear and hatred as his preaching stirred an anticlerical uproar
among the people. He is called a heretic, but beyond its anticlericalism the
nature of his teaching is not made clear. After Bishop Hildebert succeeded in
expelling him from the city, Henry traveled southward, continuing to preach,
and seems also to have moved into an openly heretical position in respect of
some sacraments and of the Church’s authority. It was probably he who
was the target of the Council of Toulouse (1119), the third canon of which
excommunicates as heretics those who attacked the sacraments of the
Eucharist and baptism, disparaged the validity of priestly orders, and held
errors about the conditions of legitimate matrimony.2 As the chronicler of
108 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century
Le Mans then recounts, Henry was eventually seized; after being examined
before the Council of Pisa in 1135, the heretic renounced his errors and was
ordered to a monastery. But not long afterward he was again at large, the
danger of his activities seeming ever greater to contemporary orthodox eyes.
The widest disagreement long prevailed among scholars on details of the
life and doctrines of Henry, as of Peter of Bruys, with whom Henry joined
forces at some time before 1133 (see No. 13). But in recent years new
studies have clarified the record and even increased the estimate of the
importance of these men in the story of twelfth-century heresy. It has been
shown that Henry, for example, was no exponent of dualism, although his
influence exacerbated the antagonism to the Church from which the Cathars
would eventually profit. More significant, perhaps, was his influence on the
Waldenses of the later part of the century, who were to absorb some of his
teachings.3
Three of the many studies on Henry may be cited: Johannes Wilhelm
von Walter, Die ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs: Studien zur Geschichte
des Monchtums, Neue Folge, pp. 130-40; Raoul Manselli, “II monaco
Enrico e la sua eresia,” Bullettino delVlstituto storico italiano per il medio
evo e Archivio Muratoriano, LXV (1953), 1-63; and the same author’s Studi
sulle eresie, pp. 1-67.
Two excerpts are translated here from a narrative of the deeds of the
bishops of Le Mans which was compiled by a number of authors from the
ninth to the thirteenth century. The author of the portion from which these
were taken was apparently a contemporary of Bishop Hildebert of Le Mans
(1096^1125), the prelate who had to deal with Henry.4
Parts A and B are both translated, by permission of the Societe historique
de la province du Mans, from Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degen-
tium9 ed. by G. Busson and A. Ledru (Archives historiques du Maine, II
[Le Mans, 1901]), pp. 407-15 and 437-38, respectively.

A. HENRY AT LE MANS

circa 1115
About the same time, in nearby districts there appeared a certain
charlatan whose personal conduct, evil habits, and detestable doctrine
testified that he deserved flogging and the punishments of a murderer.
He hid the madness of a ravening wolf under sheep’s clothing; the driving
power in his countenance and glance was like that of the cruel sea. Hair
cropped, beard untrimmed, tall of stature, quick of pace, he glided along
the ground barefoot as winter raged; easy of address, awe-inspiring in
voice, young in years, scornful of ornate dress; his unconventional way
of life was on the surface unlike that of ordinary folk—shelter in the
houses of burghers, a night’s lodging as a transient, a meal, a bed in a
11. Henry of Le Mans 109

garret (not at all in keeping with the prophet Daniel but in accord with
that verse which reads, “For death is come up through our windows”).5
What more can be said? For everywhere he gained an increasing repu¬
tation for astonishing holiness and wisdom; not by merit, but by deceit;
not by truth, but by appearance; not in character nor habits nor piety,
but by mere hearsay. Matrons and adolescent boys (for he enjoyed the
pandering of both sexes), attending him at different times, avowed
openly their aberrations and increased them, caressed his feet, his
buttocks, his groin, with tender hands. Completely carried away by this
fellow’s wantonness and by the enormity of adultery, they publicly pro¬
claimed that they had never touched a man of such strength, such human¬
ity, such power. By his speech even a heart of stone could be moved to
repentance; monks, anchorites, and all the cloistered clergy could well
imitate his piety and celibate life. Indeed, they declared, the Lord God
had bestowed upon him the ancient and veritable blessing and spirit
of the prophets, through which, by only scanning their faces, he might
know and declare the sins of mortal men which they hid from others.
When rumors of this sort floated into our district, the people, ap¬
plauding their own destruction with their peculiar fickleness, daily and
every day longed to be beguiled by his discourse, longed for his advent,
by which they might the more quickly become intimates and participants
in his heresy. For it often happens that those things are the more wel¬
come to the masses which are the worse for them. Indeed, the cycle of
the days brought still more! The man, determined on the infection of
our fellow-citizens with his venemous breath, in imitation of the Savior
dispatched before him to the bishop two of his disciples, like him in
life and character. When they entered the outskirts of our city on Ash
Wednesday, the whole population, eager for the wickedness offered them,
received them as angels of the Lord of all. As teachers do, they carried
staves, to the tips of which a standard like a cross, made of iron, was
fastened; in outward appearance and in speech they put on the appear¬
ance of penitents. The pontiff [Hildebert], a man of the greatest piety,
little suspecting the deceits of a Trojan horse, received them courteously
and in good faith and turned upon them a gracious and friendly coun¬
tenance. Although he had undertaken to go to Rome, he instructed his
archdeacons, among other things, to grant to the pseudohermit Henry
(for that was the heretic’s name), peaceful entry and license to preach to
the people.
 110 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century
Henry entered within the city walls, and the populace, as usual, ap¬
plauded novelty, as we have said, and were more interested in an un¬
known character than in one of proven worth. How strange! They thought
his virtues exceeded his reputation, and, as usual, gossip had made full
use of its frequent repetition and inflated it still further. Some of the
clergy, led astray in his schism by quarrels and private donations, en¬
couraged the rabble by their ranting and prepared a platform from which
that demagogue might harangue the crowds of people who hung on his
lips. Furthermore, when he addressed the people, these clerics sat weep¬
ing at his feet as he roared pronouncements like an oracle. It was as if
1

legions of demons were all making their noise in one blast through his
mouth. Nevertheless, he was remarkably fluent. When his speech enter¬
ed the ears of the mob, it stuck in their minds. Like a potent poison, it
penetrated to the inner organs, vented an inexorable hatred on life. Ever
more eagerly it changes its form and renews its attacks. By this heresy
the people were so charged with hatred for the clergy that they threaten¬
ed their servants with torture and sought to allow no one to sell anything
to them or to buy from them. Indeed, they treated them like heathen and
publicans. Furthermore, they had resolved not only to tear down their
dwellings and pillage their goods, but to stone them or hang them from
the gibbet as well [and would have done so] had not the count6 and his
vassals learned of the wickedness of these people and prevented their
abominable attempts by force rather than by argument, for beasts
hearken not to reason.
Some of the clergy who lived in the city, namely Hugh Bird, William
Drinknowater, and Pagan Aldric,7 approached Henry one day, intending
to debate with him, and were violently assaulted and abusively tumbled
and fouled with mud and filth in the gutters and barely escaped from
the attack of the furious crowd with their lives; indeed, once they were
out of immediate danger their retreat seemed like flight. Surrounded by
the mob, they would never have escaped the peril, had not the pro¬
tection of the count and his vassals permitted them to reach shelter.
For, as we said, the lord of the city opposed the folly of those people
and was resolved never to abandon the defense of the clergy.
The clergy did not dare to speak to the charlatan personally so they
sent a letter by one of the canons, couched in the following terms:
“In peace and respect our Church received you and your companions,
who came in sheep’s clothing but who inwardly devised the wiles of
11. Henry of Le Mans Ill
ravening wolves. It likewise displayed toward you the promise and per¬
formance of brotherly love, believing that you would honestly admonish
the people for the salvation of their souls and would faithfully sow the
seed of the word of God in their hearts. But you took upon yourself to
give in return the very opposite of what you should—wrath for peace,
disgrace for honor, hatred for love, a curse for a blessing—and to disturb
the Church of God by your knavery. You have sown discord between
clergy and people, and by treachery ten times repeated you have moved
the mass of unruly people with swords and cudgels against Mother
Church. You have proffered us the kiss of Judas; you have, as a public
insult, called us and the whole clergy heretics. Above all—and what is
worse—you have banefully and perfidiously uttered much that is con¬
trary to the Catholic faith, which a faithful Christian trembles to re¬
capitulate. Therefore, by the authority of the high and indivisible Trinity,
of the whole orthodox Church, of Mary, Holy Mother of God, of St.
Peter, prince of the apostles, and of his vicar, our reverend father, Pope
Paschal,8 and of our bishop, Hildebert, we altogether forbid you and the
companions who so wickedly and damnably associate themselves with
your error to preach further in the entire diocese of Le Mans, privately
or publicly; nor shall you dare to disseminate the absurdities of your
wicked doctrines. If, however, you assert yourself against such authority
and open wide your jaws again to spew out poison, we, buttressed by this
authority and its prerogative, excommunicate you and all your accom¬
plices, supporters, and assistants; and He, whose divinity you unceasing¬
ly oppose, shall cause you to be delivered to eternal malediction on the
day of stern judgment.”
The fellow, however, refused to accept the letter, so William Muscha
read it aloud, phrase by phrase, in his presence. To William the by¬
standers threatened bodily injury, for it seemed to them that he had
publicly and rudely put Henry to shame. The latter, at each phrase of
the letter, shook his head and kept repeating, “You lie.” Surely, if the
*

count’s steward, under whose protection William had undertaken the

mission, had not been there, William would never have returned to
Mother Church alive.
After these events, Henry nonetheless held sacrilegious meetings even
at Saint-Germain and Saint-Vincent,9 where he proclaimed a new doc¬
trine: that women who had lived unchastely should, all unclothed, burn
their garments, together with their hair, in the sight of everyone; that no
112 Late Eleventh to Mid-Tweljth Century

one in the future should receive gold, silver, property, or betrothal gifts
with his wife, nor should she bring him a dowry, but the naked should
marry the nude, the ailing the sick, the pauper the destitute. Nor was he
concerned whether the chaste or the unchaste married.
While they behaved as the charlatan suggested, the fellow admired
the beautiful features of individual women, how one surpassed the other
in whiteness, while another was more attractive for plumpness of body.
The whole behavior and mood of the people hung upon his dictate. What
a shower of gold and silver he might have reveled in, had he wished, but
he restrained his avarice for fear of being thought too greedy. In reality,
while keeping much for himself, he did devote a little to replacing the
clothing which, as we have recorded, had been burned. Also, at his
behest many young men took in marriage women of the streets, for
whom Henry bought clothing worth four shillings (solidi), scarcely suf¬
ficient to cover their nakedness.
But the Just Judge destroyed the works of the heretic and revealed to
others what sort of tree this was: one which bears leaves but no fruit,
which monopolizes the ground and chokes out everything that sprouts
nearby, one which cannot endure until the rainy season, but withers
and dies in summer. For after a short lapse of time, the young men who
had taken wives according to his wicked advice ran away to other parts,
driven thereto either by hunger or by the debauchery of the women, and
left their wives totally destitute of support. And so the men took other
women to themselves in adultery; the women, though their husbands
were still alive, sought illicit union with other men. Although they were
many, no man or woman of those who entered into matrimony at this
man’s urging ever displayed faithfulness or respect to wife or husband.
Nor could any other woman who by oath renounced fornication and the
pleasures of dress restrain herself, but within a matter of days, as her
misdeeds increased, she would lapse into worse habits.
As this publican10 was constantly engaged in such acts and many
others like diem, he learned of the return of the bishop, who, as we have
already indicated, had set out for Rome. He withdrew to the village of
Saint-Calais and lived there and in places nearby. He was far from
abandoning his career; on the contrary, he steadily introduced worse in¬
novations. For on the most sacred day of Pentecost, when faithful
children, indeed, are wont devoudy to attend divine service, this lowest
of men attached to himself a certain very young cleric (by whose report
11. Henry of Le Mans 113
so much of the sensuality of the man was later exposed and set out
)11

stealthily and in the solitary quiet of the night for the house of a certain
knight and there lay wantonly in bed with the matron of the house until
midday. Thus, neither out of holy fear or for shame before men would
he moderate his lewdness, until he had displayed the enormity of his
villainy to people near and far.
While these things were going on, the bishop already mentioned ap¬
proached the outskirts of the city, accompanied by a great and mighty
throng of his clergy. When with fatherly kindness he bestowed the bless¬
ing of the living God by word and sign upon the people, they were stirred
in animosity of thought and speech to disparagement of the Creator.
Spuming his sign of the Cross and the episcopal blessing, they cried out,
“We want no knowledge of your ways! We don’t want your blessing!
Bless filth! Consecrate filth! We have a father, we have a pontiff, we
have an advocate who surpasses you in authority; he exceeds you in
probity and knowledge. The wicked clergy, your clergy, oppose him.
They gainsay his teaching. They despise and reject him as guilty of
sacrilege, fearing that by prophetic insight he would expose their crimes.
They condemned his heresy and incontinence behind the prerogative of a
letter, but all these things shall fall back at once upon the heads of those
who have presumed by unimaginably overweening audacity to forbid to
the holy man of God the word of heavenly preaching.”
The bishop had compassion on their error and stupidity and patiently
bore the insults which they heaped upon him, praying without cease to
the God of Majesty that He would restrain popular delusion compounded
with pride, lest they succeed in creating a schism in His Church. But in
accordance with the words of the Psalmist pleading for the salvation of
transgressors, “Fill their faces with shame and they shall seek thy name,
O Lord,” the same Lord God allowed the major part of the city’s
12

suburbs to be burned by a sudden conflagration, that by the loss of

worldly goods at least, they might abandon their evil way of life and call
upon the sacred name, the name of the living God. Indeed, the pontiff
(echoing the words of the prophet, “O how great is the multitude of thy
sweetness, O Lord, which thou hast hidden for them that fear thee ”)13

a few days later sought out the seducer and put a stop to his irreverence
by divine authority. For when they met in parley the bishop inquired on
the basis of what special fitness the man had chosen his vocation. He was
mute, not understanding what “vocation” meant. The bishop tried again,
114 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

inquiring what office the man exercised. “I am a deacon,” said he. Then
**44
said the bishop, “Tell me, now, did you go to Mass today?” “No Then
let us sing the morning hymns unto God.” But when they began to do so,
Henry acknowledged that he did not know the order of service for the
day. Still the bishop, wishing to disclose to the full the fellow’s lack of
knowledge, began to sing the customary hymns to the Mother of God.
Of these the man knew neither the words nor the sequence. And so,
covered with shame, he acknowledged his life, his way of preaching, his
presumption. In reality he was a camp-follower, completely untaught,
and wholly given over to sensuality, yet he had gained notoriety by
haranguing the people and throwing dice.14 Of such is it written: “True
glory takes root and grows; all shams quickly pass away and wither like
flowers, nor can anything which is based on pretense be long lasting.” 15
So the bishop, because he recognized the shallowness and irreverence
of Henry, by apostolic authority ordered him to tarry no longer in his
diocese but to make his way elsewhere and spare our people. Indeed, the
man was overcome by the pontiff’s persistence and fled secretly, and
(if the report be valid) disturbed other regions 16 in the same fashion
and spread infection by his poisonous breath. I have recorded these
facts about Henry and recounted the deeds of Hildebert for the con¬
venience and instruction of posterity, that care may be taken lest the
Church of Christ be disturbed at some other time by a delusion of this
sort.
Thereafter, the same Hildebert arranged in various ways, by persua¬
sion and humility in equal parts, to calm the madness of the people
whom Henry had so seditiously incited against the clergy. Henry had so
won them over to himself that even now it is scarcely possible to destroy
his memory and to drive affection for him from their hearts.

B. HENRY BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF PISA

circa 1135
At this time the pseudohermit of whom we wrote in a previous passage
began anew to spread the poison of his heresy in far-off lands and to lay
waste the Church of God by the blackness of his villainy. Lending his
ear solely to the narratives and writings of the prophets, he propounded a
perverted dogma which a faithful Christian ought neither recapitulate
nor hear. But by the pity of God, who always “hath had regard to the
11. Henry of Le Mans 115
prayer of the humble and hath not despised their petition,” 17 that fellow
Henry was seized by the archbishop of Arles18 and brought before Lord
Pope Innocent19 in a council at Pisa.20 There he was again convicted and
by common consent named as a heretic; at the council’s close he was
delivered into confinement.21 Later, when he had been given leave to go
to another province, he took up a new sect, a new course, a new path of
transgression.22 This region he has kept so constantly in turmoil that
Christians hardly visit the churches; rather they condemn the holy
service. They refuse offerings to the priests, first fruits, tithes, visitation
of the sick, and the usual reverences.23 But now we must pass over such
things and hasten on to other matters.

12. A Monk's Description of the Errors of Henry

A tract against the errors of Henry gives the clearest description we have
of the doctrines he professed. The author depicts himself as having sought
out the heretic for discussion, after which he recorded Henry’s assertions
and his own lengthier rebuttals to be sent to some unnamed prelate. The
date was probably 1133-1135.1 There are two versions of the tract. One, dis¬
covered by Mario Esposito in 1940 in a manuscript of Nice (MS 3 [R.18],
fols. 136-43), gives the name of the author as William.2 Raoul Manselli, in
1953, identified and published another version, from Paris (B. N. MS Lat.
3371, fols. lr-4r). It is earber in date, more detailed, and was probably the
basis for the Nice copy, although it has no statement of authorship.3 From
Manselli’s edition of the Paris manuscript are translated here the statements
attributed to Henry. The arguments of the Catholic are omitted, because
they do not advance our knowledge of Henry’s heresy. We add, as Manselli
did, one passage which appears only in the Nice manuscript, and have
throughout noted other differences between the two versions, using photo¬
graphs of the Nice manuscript for this purpose.
The significance of the work is not limited to its revelation of Henry’s
teaching. Some three quarters of a century later, when followers of Waldes
of Lyons were engaging in controversy with the Cathars, William’s work
was taken over almost completely into a polemical tract attributed to Durand
of Huesca, a Waldensian who was most active in that debate.4
The translation comes from the text in Raoul Manselli, “It monaco Enrico
e la sua eresia,” Bullettino dell*Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo e
Archivio Muratoriano, LXV /1953), 44-63, passim; by permission of that
journal.

circa 1133-1135
After parting from Your Worthy Presence, I came to a place where
116 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century
I had a bitter controversy with the heresiarch Henry. I have taken pains
to describe to Your Prudence the course of the argument, so that if the
beast, by any chance, comes into your vicinity you may be forewarned
that by many arguments and proofs he bas been clearly shown to be a
heretic and you may firmly keep him away from the limits of your
church.5
Thereupon, I addressed the fellow in these words: “I ask you who
propose such wicked tenets, so hurtful to our faith: In obedience to whom
do you preach? Who commissioned you to this function? What Scriptures
do you accept?” And he [replied]: “To answer your question about
obedience: I confess that I obey God rather than man, for obedience is
owed to God rather than to men.6 To answer your question about my
mission: He sent me who said, ‘Go, teach ye all nations.’7 He who im¬
posed the duty was the same as He who said, ‘Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself.’8 Furthermore, I accept the Scriptures of the New
Testament, by which I verify and corroborate the aforesaid statements.
But in case you seek to draw arguments against me from Jerome,
Augustine, and other doctors of the Church, I admit giving their words
due regard but not as vital to salvation” [pp. 44-45]... .9
Concerning Children Who Die before the Age of Understanding.
You [Henry] argue that children attain salvation if they die before the
age of understanding and by this you destroy the doctrine of original sin;
thus you fall into the Pelagian heresy.10 For you say: “It is a wicked
thing to condemn a man for another person’s sin, in accordance with the
text, ‘The soul that sinneth, the same shall die,’11 and likewise, ‘The son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Everyone shall bear his own
burden’ ” [p. 47]_12
That Baptism Should Not Be Given with Chrism and OiiiZ Now we
pass on to another point. You say: “There is no Gospel command to
baptize with chrism and oil” [p. 51]....
That the Body of Christ Cannot Be Consecrated by Unworthy Min-
isters.u Now we come to a third article. “The body of Christ,” so you
say, “cannot be consecrated by an unworthy minister.” In this I see your
wickedness explicitly, for you wish to make this a means of weakening
the basis of a great sacrament and of depriving the Church of that by
which the body of man is strengthened and the spirit sustained. For
you say: “Mass may be sung and Christ’s body consecrated, provided
anyone can be found worthy to do so”; thus enjoining us to discover an
12. The Errors of Henry 117
imaginary person who never can be found, because no one is without
sin, not even a day-old child. “For all have sinned and do need the glory
of God.”15 You ask the impossible, seeking to shatter the ordinances
of our faith. You, together with the Arians18 and other heretics, never
cease to rend the robe of Christ [p. 53]....
Merely the Agreement of the Persons Concerned Constitutes a Mar¬
riage. Give attention, if you can, and let us go on to the sacrament of
matrimony, on which you are in error. “Merely the agreement of the
persons concerned, without any rite or ecclesiastical ceremony, consti¬
tutes a marriage,” you say, “and what is so contracted cannot be dis¬
solved save on grounds of fornication.” In this your error is disgraceful
[p. 55]_17
Priests of the Present Day Do Not Have the Power to Bind or Loose.
But since you do not know what things constitute, or are impediments to,
or dissolve marriages, I forbear to discuss them with you. Let us now
turn to the subject of priests and prelates of the Church, against whom
you rave. “Priests of today,” you represent, “have not the power to bind
or loose, for they are stripped of this power by having criminally sinned”
[p. 56]_
There is No Gospel Command to Go to a Priest for Penance. Now let
us pass on to another point, which concerns penance. You say: “There
is no Gospel command to go to a priest for penance, for the apostle
James says, ‘Confess your sins one to another,’18 and so On. He did not
say, ‘Confess to priests,’ but ‘Confess one to another’” [p. 58]....
Bishops and Priests Ought Not to Have Wealth or Benefices.*• Now
you say: “Bishops and priests ought not to have benefices or wealth.” In
this you do not abate your frenzy against priests [p. 60]....
On the Ring, the Miter, and the Pastoral Staff [p. 61. The heretic is
not quoted in this passage but is represented as opposing the use of these
appurtenances of the episcopal office.]
That Churches of Wood or Stone Should Not Be Constructed. Of
churches, which you have discussed in your first chapter,*® you say that
they ought not to be built of wood or stone.... Yet you seek to subvert
and trouble the house of God and its beauty, and the whole condition of
the Church [p. 61].... What follows—“No good work helps the dead,
for as soon as men die they either are utterly damned or are saved”—
is openly heretical [p. 62]_*‘
 118 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

13. The Teachings of Peter of Bruys

About the year 1112, Peter of Bruys began a career of preaching in defiance
of the Church in the Alpine foothills east of the Rhone.1 Like his contem¬
porary Henry, he railed at the Roman clergy for their worldly life, insisting
on the spiritual character of the true Church to the exclusion of its material
attributes. To orthodox observers, the two men seemed much alike. Indeed,
shortly before Peter of Bruys died, he and Henry came into some kind of
alliance. Although Henry was called the heir to Peter’s iniquities, he was
more than a mere disciple, however, for on some points they disagreed.
Peter of Bruys was murdered, not long after 1131, by certain of the faithful
r . ^ _ •

who were outraged at his sacrilegious treatment of the Cross, the veneration
of which he despised.
One of the great abbots of Cluny, Peter the Venerable (1152-1156), wrote
the only detailed account we now have of the teaching of Peter of Bruys.2
The abbot was one of the reformers of his order, a man of wide-ranging
interests and travels, whose letters constitute an excellent source for the
history of his life and times. Between 1131 and 1133 he wrote a letter
which was, in effect, a tractate in refutation of the doctrines of the heretic.
It was not made public, however, until after Peter of Bruys’s death when,
in 1133 or 1134, the abbot added as a preface to it another shorter letter,
summarizing the career and tenets of the heretic. We translate only this
second and prefatory letter.3
On Peter of Bruys, one may consult particularly Manselli, Studi sulle
eresie, chaps. I, II; and J. C. Reagan, “Did the Petrobrusians Teach Salva¬
tion by Faith Alone?” Journal of Religion, VII (1927), 81-91. A recent
biography of Peter the Venerable is Jean Leclercq’s Pierre le Venerable;
there is also a brief biography of Peter in English in Herbert Thurston and
Donald Attwater, eds., Butler's Lives of the Saints, rev. ed., IV, 640-41,
The following piece is translated from Petri Venerabilis... Epistola sive
tractatus adversus petrobrusianos haereticos: Praefatio, in Migne, Patrologia
latina, CLXXXIX, 719-24.

1133-1134
To the lords and fathers, ministers of the Church of God, the arch¬
bishops of Arles and Embrun, the bishops of Die and Gap,4 Brother
Peter, the lowly abbot of Cluny, offers greeting and obedience.
Recently I wrote a letter to Your Reverence,5 opposing the heresies of
Peter of Bruys, but a large quantity of important business kept my mind
from composing and my pen from writing; so I have put off sending it
until this moment. Now, at last, I send it to Your Discretion, so that
through you it may come to the attention of the heretics against whom it
is written and also to the attention of Catholics, to whom, perchance, it
13. Peter of Bruys 119

may be of use. I send it to you because in the lands administered by

you or in adjacent areas this foolish and impious heresy, a serious
pestilence, has slain many people and infected more; but the grace of
God has helped and spurred on your efforts, and it has now moved a
little apart from your localities. However, as I have heard, it has shifted
to a place not very far from you. When driven out of your region of
Septimania6 by your energetic action, it made its lair in the province of
Novempopulana, which is commonly called Gascony, and in nearby
areas. Therein, at one moment it cowers in terror, at the next sallies forth
when it has mustered boldness; it deceives those whom it can, corrupts
those whom it can, and administers its lethal poison to people in various
places. It is therefore up to you, to whom especially by reason of office
and of exceptional knowledge pertains the care of the Church of God
and on whom the Church rests on sturdy pillars; it is your affair, I say,
to root out the heresy by preaching and even, if it shall prove necessary,
by force of arms of the laity from those places in which the heresy re¬
joices at having found its hiding places. But since it is right that Christian
charity should put the greater effort on converting heretics than on
driving them out, let authority be cited to them, let reason also be added,
so that they may be compelled to yield—to authority if they choose to
remain Christians, to reason if they choose to remain men.
Perhaps it will be of advantage to them for this purpose if they choose
to pay heed to the letter which I wrote to you in refutation of their errors;
and if they are willing to put aside contentiousness and obstinacy after
they have read it carefully, even though they have erred egregiously,
they may return to their senses from the stupidity of such error. But if
they have been ‘‘delivered up to a reprobate sense” 7 and choose to be
foolish rather than wise, to perish rather than to be saved, to die rather
than to live, perhaps the reading of this letter will satisfy the inner
questionings of some Catholics and either heal their minds of listlessness
of faith, not apparent to men, or fortify them against those whose tongue
the prophet called “a sharp sword.” 8 This reason, which I list in last
place, was to me the more important one for writing, so that, even
though this letter be spurned by the heretics, it still may be of some
utility to the Church of God. For the Church, as Your Wisdom knows,
has throughout past ages been wont always so to proceed that she has
never passed over in silence any of the numerous and varied heresies
which have repeatedly striven to taint her purity, but has, for her own
120 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

security and for the continual instruction of all, purged the blasphemies
of all heretics by appeal to holy authorities and also by reason. This I—
although one of the least members of the body of Christ, that is, of his
Church—have ventured to do in writing these things, so that what I
have written may be of use to the heretics, if that be possible. Catholics
into whose hands it may fall may be made more wary of reprehensible
teaching and the like.
And because the first seeds of erroneous doctrine, sown and nurtured
by Peter of Bruys for nearly twenty years, have produced five principal
poisonous plants, I have directed my discussion, in so far as 1 could,
against these especially, so that thought and word may occupy them¬
selves the more fully with those things in which the greater injury to
faith shows the more serious danger to lie. Thus, since the tract itself is
rather prolix, nor is, perhaps, a prolonged period for reading available
to you who are occupied with the affairs of several churches, I here
briefly resume those propositions and set forth the errors with which the
long letter deals more fully.
The first proposition of the heretics denies that infants presented be¬
fore the age of understanding can be saved through the baptism of
Christ and that another’s faith can be of advantage to those who cannot
exercise their own, since, according to the heretics, not another’s faith
but one’s own brings salvation through baptism. For the Lord said, “He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be condemned.” 9
The second proposition holds that construction of temples or churches
ought not to be undertaken; moreover, if built, they should be torn down.
Nor are holy places necessary to Christians for prayer, since God hears
as well when invoked in a tavern as in a church, in a market place as in
a temple, before an altar or in a stable, and He hearkens to those who
are worthy.
The third proposition prescribes that holy crosses be broken and
burned, because that shape or contrivance, on which Christ was so
bitterly tortured and so cruelly killed, is not worthy of adoration or
veneration or prayer of any kind; but, in revenge for His torments and
death, they should be disgraced with every dishonor, hacked to pieces
by swords, burned by fire.
The fourth proposition not only denies the verity of the body and
blood of the Lord, daily and continually presented through the sacra-
13. Peter of Bruys 121

ment in the Church, but declares that it is nothing at all, and that it
ought not be offered to God.
The fifth proposition scorns the sacrificial offerings, prayers, charities,
and the rest of the good works done by the faithful who live, on behalf of
the faithful who are dead; and it affirms that they can in no way be of
service to the dead.
I have answered these five propositions to the extent that God allows
me in that letter which I am sending to Your Sanctity. And I have much
concerned myself with whatever ways the impiety of the faithless may
be either converted or confounded and the confident belief of the just
may be encouraged.
Now, after the destruction of Peter of Bruys, whom the zeal of the
faithful at Saint-Gilles punished by burning in the flames from the wood
of the Lord’s Cross which he had set afire, after this impious man had
assuredly made the transit from fire to fire, from brief passing flame to
eternal flame, the heir of his iniquity, Henry, has altered but indeed not
improved his diabolical teaching with I know not what other matters and
has put out not five but many propositions, as I have seen inscribed in
a volume which is said to have been written down from his very words.10
Against this, one’s mind is kindled to act in turn and to set holy phrases
over against demoniacal words. However, since full assurance has not
yet been given me that this truly represents his thought or teaching, I
have deferred a response until the time when I shall have undoubted
certainty about the things which are there set forth. But if I may in the
future reach assurance, through the evidence of your thorough investi¬
gation, I shall put forth what effort I can to see that the cup of death,
offered by the most miserable of men to their peers in misery, which is
drained of one part shall, by renewed refutations, be wholly emptied of
its remaining dregs. Meanwhile, please make known the letter, drawn up
for the convenience of readers and by you transmitted to those to whom
it shall seem appropriate in time and place. It may succeed, as I have
said, in correcting some of the heretics against whom it is written, or in
making Catholics, for whom it is written, more cautious in these and
like matters. If anyone wants to copy it, let him not fail to set this shorter
letter as a preface, for in this the occasion for and the content of the
larger tract are briefly indicated.
122 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

14. Bernard of Clairvaux against Henry

The career of Bernard of Clairvaux is too well known to need review here.
His pre-eminence in the religious life of the twelfth century made him a
natural champion of orthodoxy against every kind of attack. It may be
recalled that he was the leader in the fight against the theological teaching
of Abelard which culminated in the latter’s condemnation at Sens in 1140.
Subsequently, he harried Abelard’s disciple, Arnold of Brescia, out of France
(see No. 19) and in 1148 he was to press an unsuccessful proposal for the
condemnation of Gilbert de la Porr6e at the Council of Rheims. In the two
translations presented here we see him joining in the attack on the popular
heresies. The first is a letter addressed to Alphonse Jordan, count of Toulouse
(1112-1148), announcing Bernard’s participation in a mission to Toulouse to
combat the influence of the heretic Henry; the second is from a biography
of Bernard by his secretary, Geoffrey of Auxerre, describing that visit.
Before coming to Clairvaux, Geoffrey had been a student of Abelard; later
he became, successively, abbot of Clairvaux (1162), of Fosseneuve (1170),
and of Hautecombe (1176), and was to be present at an important moment
in the history of Waldes and the Poor of Lyons (see No. 32). Among his
numerous works are Books III and IV of the Magna vita or Vita prima of
St. Bernard, from which the excerpt in part B is taken.
An excellent biography
Watkin Williams, Saint Bernard of
biography
Clairvaux. contains a better treatment abbot’s efforts against the
popular heresies.1 On the life and works of Geoffrey of Auxerre, consult
Jean Leclercq, “Les Ecrits de Geoffroy d’Auxerre,” Revue Benedictine,
LXII (1952), 274-91; and the Histoire litteraire de la France, XIV, 430-51.
Part A below is translated from Sancti Bernardi ... epistolae 241, in
Migne, Patrologia latina, CLXXXII, 434-36. Part B is translated from
Sancti Bernardi ...vita et res gestae libris septem comprehensae: Liber
Gaufrido monacho ... vi.16,17, in Migne
CLXXXV

A. BERNARD S DENUNCIATION OF HENRY

1145
1. I have learned and realize fully how great are the evils which the
heretic Henry has committed and is still committing daily against the
churches of God. A ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing is abroad in your
land, but as the Lord has shown, we know him by his fruits.2 The church¬
es are without congregations, congregations are without priests, priests
are without proper reverence, and, finally, Christians are without Christ.
Churches are looked upon as synagogues; it is denied that God’s sanctu-
14. Bernard against Henry 123

ary is holy; sacraments are not deemed sacred; solemn feast days are
stultified. Men die in their sins. Souls everywhere are snatched away to
the dread tribunal, alas, unreconciled by penance, unfortified by Holy
Communion. So long as the grace of baptism is denied them, the life of
Christ is barred to the children of Christians, nor are they allowed to
draw near to salvation, although the Savior tenderly calls them, saying,
“Suffer the little children to come to me.”3 Is it from innocents alone,
then, that God, who has saved both men and beasts as He has multiplied
His mercies, withholds that same overflowing mercy? Why, I ask, why
does this man begrudge to children the child Savior who was born to
them? This is diabolical jealousy! Because of it, death has entered the
world.4 Or does the man assume that children need no savior because
they are children? If that is so, then for naught did the mighty Lord
become a little child, not to mention that He was scourged, was spat
upon, was crucified, and finally died.
2. That man is not from God who thus acts and speaks in contra¬
diction of God. O woe! that he is nonetheless listened to by many and
has a following who believe him. O unhappiest of people! In them, at
the voice of one heretic, have grown silent all the voices of prophets
and apostles that had rung out in one spirit of truth to call together the
Church in the faith of Christ out of all nations. Thus have holy oracles
deceived! Thus are deceived the eyes and minds of all who perceive the
fulfillment of the prophecy whereof they read! That truth so assuredly
obvious to all, this man alone, with amazing and truly Jewish blindness,
either sees not, or hates to see fulfilled. And at the same time he has
swayed a silly and foolish people, by I know not what devilish wiles, not
to believe their own eyes in a matter so obvious. The fathers were de¬
ceived and the children go astray! The whole world goes to perdition,
even after Christ’s blood was shed, and it is only those whom he is
deceiving who [according to him] have won the full riches of God’s
mercies and have attained the fullness of His grace.5
And now for this reason, although enfeebled in body, I am under¬
taking a hurried journey to those places where that singular wild beast
feeds,6 since there is no one to offer him resistance or to afford pro¬
tection from him. Indeed, because for evil deeds like these he has been
forced to flee from all parts of France, he has found only those lands
open to him. There boldly he revels in all his fury among the flock of
Christ under your rule. Be yourself the judge, illustrious prince, whether
124 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

this befits your honor. Yet it is not strange that the wily serpent has de¬
ceived you, for he does, indeed, have the appearance of piety though he
has entirely rejected its excellence.
3. But hear now the sort of person he is! He is an apostate who cast
off his religious habit—for he was a monk—and returned to the filth of
the flesh and of the world, like a dog to its vomit.7 Moreover, because of
his shameful conduct, not being able to endure life among his relatives
and acquaintances, or rather, not being permitted to do so on account
of the enormity of his offense, he girded his loins and journeyed aim¬
lessly about, having become a wanderer 8 and fugitive on the face of the
earth. When he had begun to beg, he put a price on the Gospel, for he
was educated, and, offering the Word of God for sale at retail, he preach¬
ed in order to eat. If he were able to wheedle anything beyond his daily
needs from the simpler folk or from some one of the married women, he
basely squandered it at dice or used it for purposes more foul. Often,
indeed, after a day of applause from the people the distinguished preach¬
er was found that night with harlots and sometimes even with married
women! Ask, if you please, noble Sir, under what circumstances he left
the city of Lausanne, or Le Mans, or Poitiers, or Bordeaux! And nowhere
is a way of return open to him, for everywhere he has left behind him
foul footprints. Did you hope for good fruit from such a tree? Since
he came to the land where he now is, he has made of it a stench through¬
out the whole earth, because, according to the word of the Lord, an evil
tree cannot bring forth good fruit.9
4. This, as I have said, is the reason for my visit. Nor do I now come
of myself alone but I am equally drawn by the summons of and by
compassion for the Church. Perchance that thorn and its evil seeds can
be rooted out of the field of the Lord while they are still small, not by
my hand, for I am nothing, but by that of the holy bishops in whose
company I am, with the help of your own strong right hand. Chief
among these is the venerable bishop of Ostia, sent by the Apostolic See
for this purpose. He is a man “who has done great things in Israel,” 10
and through him has Almighty God given victory to His Church in many
instances. It is incumbent upon you, illustrious Sir, to receive him and
his associates 11 with honor and to exert yourself, in accordance with
the power vouchsafed you from on high, so that this great labor of these
great men, which is undertaken especially for your own salvation and the
salvation of your people, be not in vain.
14. Bernard against Henry 125

B. BERNARD’S MISSION TO TOULOUSE

1145
In the neighborhood of Toulouse a certain Henry, once a monk, later
a base apostate of very wicked life and destructive teaching, had caught
the fickle attention of the people of that region with winning words and,
as the Apostle foretold of certain men, “speaking lies in hypocrisy” 18
he trafficked with them in false words. He was, moreover, an open
enemy of the Church, irreverently disparaging the sacraments as well as
the ministers of the Church. He had already progressed immoderately
in this wickedness. For the venerable father, when he wrote about him
to the prince of Toulouse, says, among other things: “Now everywhere
were found churches without congregations, congregations without priests,
priests without proper reverence. The life of Christ was barred to the
children of Christians so long as the grace of baptism was denied them.
Prayers and offerings for the dead were ridiculed as were the invocation
of saints, pilgrimages by the faithful, the building of temples, holidays
on holy days, the anointing with the chrism; and, in a word, all the in¬
stitutions of the Church were scorned. ”
Because of the great need, the holy man undertook the journey to
which he had already often been urged by the church of that region; he
was at last persuaded, as well as accompanied, by the very reverend
Alberic, bishop of Ostia and legate of the Apostolic See. Then, when he
arrived, he was received by the people of the land with incredible de¬
votion, as if an angel from heaven had descended into their midst. He
could not tarry with them, because no one could restrain the crowds of
people who pressed upon him, so great was the multitude day and night
who approached him to ask his blessing and implore his help.
He did, however, preach in the city of Toulouse for several days and
in other places more often frequented and more seriously infected by
that miserable heretic. He instructed many simple folk in the faith,
called back the wandering, restored those who had been subverted. And
by his authority he bore down upon and overwhelmed the subverters
and the obstinate so that they dared not resist or even appear.18 As for
the rest, although that heretic went into hiding, nevertheless his ways
were so obstructed and his paths so hedged that he was hardly safe
anywhere afterward and he was finally captured and handed over in
chains to the bishop.14 On this journey, God was also glorified in his
126 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

servant by a great many miraculous works; the hearts of some he re¬

called from impious errors, the bodies of others he healed of various ail¬
ments.

15. An Appeal to Bernard of Clairvaux

and a Sermon in Reply
For the sake of grouping together all the items which dealt specifically
with the heretic Henry, we have violated chronological order slightly by
deferring to this point a letter written by Eberwin, prior of the Premon-
stratensian abbey of Steinfeld, in 1143 or 1144, and a sermon of the abbot
of Clairvaux which in some measure answered a request made by Eberwin.
Eberwin wrote to describe events which had recently occurred in Cologne
and to solicit Bernard’s comments.1 He announced the presence of “new
heretics,” who constituted two different groups. In one of these we may
clearly perceive the sect of the Cathars, for Eberwin enumerates all the
essentials of their doctrine and practice, except that there is no explicit
reference to dualism. He mentions their claim to the true apostolic tradition;
their alleged link with Eastern groups;2 their rejection of this material world,
and the ascetic practices thus entailed; their emphasis on the Lord’s Prayer
and the blessing of bread; the status of their perfected heretics (here called
“the Elect”), which was acquired by the imposition of hands; and the fact
that the sect had a bishop.8 We shall not pause over these characteristics at
this point; all will be repeatedly encountered in greater detail in later pieces.4
The second group in Cologne was clearly distinct from, and often in dispute
with, the first-named. Their scorn for the existing Church and its priesthood,
because of its deviation from the apostolic tradition, and their rejection of
infant baptism and of the doctrine of purgatory were widely shared among
protesting groups in the first half of the twelfth century and were to be even
more strenuously asserted in later movements.5
It seems most probable that the sermons on the problem of heresy, which
Bernard composed for his series on the Song of Songs, were also written in
1144, just prior to his trip to Languedoc.6 Not restricted to the two instances
from Cologne and southern France which were at that time pressed upon
Bernard’s attention, the sermons speak generally of heretics, whose great
faults are secrecy, deception, and the scandal of their improper relationships
with women; the danger is to those, who are, like themselves, ignorant and
ill-informed. Of specific doctrines, Bernard singles out those concerning
marriage, baptism, purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the invocation of
saints.7
On the episode at Cologne and Bernard’s sermons, see the works cited
in the introduction to Number 14, and also Manselli, Studi sulle eresiey
chap. V. A new critical edition of the works of Bernard is in the process
of preparation under the auspices of the Cistercian order; the sermons on
15. Appeal to Bernard and His Reply 127
the Song of Songs comprise the first two volumes.8 There are a number of
translations of his letters, sermons, and separate treatises. Especially useful
for our purposes were the translation made from the work of Jean Mabillon:
Life and Works of Saint Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, trans. by Samuel
J. Eales,9 and that of the sermons by a priest of Mt. Melleray [Ailbe J.
Luddy], Saint Bernard's Sermons on the Canticle of Canticles On Eberwin
.10

of Steinfeld, consult B. Heurtebize, “Eberwin de Helfenstein,” Dictionnaire

de thtologie catholique, IV, 1986-87.11
Part A is translated from Sancti Bernardi... epistolae, Ep. 472 (Everwini
Steinfeldensis praepositi ad S. Bernardum), in Migne, Patrologia latina,
CLXXXII, 676-80. Part B is translated by permission of the publisher,
Edizioni Cisterciensi, from Sancti Bernardi Sermones super Cantica canti¬
corum, Sermon 65, ed. by Jean Leclercq, C. H. Talbot, and H. M. Rochais
(Sancti Bernardi Opera, I-II [2 vols., Rome, 1957-1958]), II, 172-77.

APPEAL FROM EBERWIN OF STEI

AGAINST HERETICS AT COLOGNE

1143-1144
To his reverend Lord and Father, Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux,
Eberwin, humble servant of the abbey of Steinfeld, sends wishes that
he may be made strong in the Lord and may strengthen the Church of
Christ.
1. “I will rejoice at thy words, as one that hath found great spoil.” 12
It is your wont in everything you say and write to publish to us “the
memory of the abundance of [God’s] sweetness,” 13 especially in the
song of the love of the Bridegroom and the Bride,14 which is of Christ
and the Church, so that we can truthfully say to the Bridegroom, “Thou
hast kept the good wine until now.”16 He has made you our cupbearer
of this, the wine so precious: may you not pause in giving us to drink,
may you not hesitate. You will not be able to empty the waterpots.16
Nor, Holy Father, may your infirmity excuse you, for in the discharge of
that duty piety will do more than the exercise of physical strength.
Neither may you plead that you are busy. I know of nothing that should
take precedence over this task, so vital to the common good.
From the waterpots,17 Most Holy Father, how much you have already
given us to drink! Enough has been poured out of the first to give
wisdom and strength against the teaching and attack of the scribes and
Pharisees; from the second, against the arguments and vexations of the
pagans; from the third, against the subtle deceptions of heretics; from
the fourth, against false Christians; from the fifth, against the heretics
 128 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

who shall appear toward the end of the world, of whom, speaking
through the Apostle [Paul], “the Spirit manifestly saith that in the last
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error
and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry,
[enjoining] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be re¬
ceived with thanksgiving.”18 From the sixth waterpot shall the faithful
be filled to satiety, strengthening them against him who shall undoubted¬
ly be revealed amid this departure from die faith, to wit, that son of sin,
the man of perdition,19 “who opposeth and is lifted up above all that
is called God or that is worshiped, whose coming is according to the
working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all
seduction of iniquity.”20 After this a seventh waterpot will be unneeded,
when “the children of men shall be inebriated with the plenty of the
house of God and the torrent of His pleasure.”21
O good Father, you have already given enough to drink from the
fourth waterpot22 to correct us, to edify us, to perfect us in measure as
we are starting toward, progressing to, or coming near to perfection. To
the end of time your teaching will afford strong defense against the
indifference and perversity of false brethren.
It is now time for you to draw from the fifth waterpot and publicly
stand forth against the new heretics who everywhere in almost all
churches boil up from the pit of hell as though already their prince were
about to be loosed and the day of the Lord were at hand.23 And that
passage in the bridal song of Christ and the Church, of which you,
a
Father, have told me you are about to treat, to wit, Catch us the
foxes that destroy the vines,”24 is applicable to this mystery and has
brought you naturally to the fifth waterpot. Therefore, Father, I beg
you to analyze all the articles of the heresy of those people which have
come to your notice, set against them the arguments and authoritative
texts of our faith, and thus destroy them.
2. Here in the neighborhood of Cologne, there have recently been
discovered certain heretics, of whom some have returned to the Church
after performing the requisite penance. Two, however—a man who was
called their bishop and his assistant—held their ground against us in an
assembly of clergy and laymen, in the presence of the lord archbishop
himself and some great nobles, defending their heresy with the words of
Christ and the Apostle [Paul]. But when they had realized that they
could not prove their points, they asked for a day to be set on which
15. Appeal to Bernard and His Reply 129

they might present from among their associates men learned in their
faith, promising that they would be reconciled to the Church if they
should find their teachers unable to offer satisfactory response; other¬
wise, they would rather die than be swayed from their beliefs. This being
agreed upon, they were reasoned with for three days but would not
recant. Whereupon, against our will, they were seized by the people,
who were moved by rather too great zeal, and thrown into the fire and
burned. What is more marvelous, they met and bore the agony of the
fire not only with patience but even with joy. At this point, Holy Father,
were I with you, I should like you to explain whence comes to those
limbs of the devil constancy such as is scarcely to be found even in men
most devoted to the faith of Christ.
3. This is the heresy of those people. They say that theirs alone is the
Church, inasmuch as only they follow in the footsteps of Christ. They
continue to be the true imitators of the apostolic life, seeking not those
things which are of the world, possessing no house, or lands, or any¬
thing of their own, even as Christ had no property nor allowed His dis¬
ciples the right of possession.
“You, however,” they say to us, “add house to house, field to field,
and seek the things that are of this world. You do this to the point that
they who are considered the most perfect among you, such as monks
and canons regular, although owning nothing of their own and holding
everything in common, nevertheless possess all these things.”
Of themselves they say: “We, the poor of Christ, who have no fixed
abode and flee from city to city like sheep amidst wolves, are persecuted
as were the apostles and the martyrs, despite the fact that we lead a most
strict and holy life, persevering day and night in fasts and abstinence, in
prayers, and in labor from which we seek only the necessities of life. We
undergo this because we are not of this world. But you, lovers of the
world, have peace with it because you are of the world. False apostles,
who pollute the word of Christ, who seek after their own interest, have
led you and your fathers astray from the true path. We and our fathers,
of apostolic descent, have continued in the grace of Christ and shall so
remain until the end of time. To distinguish between us and you Christ
said, ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’28 Our fruits consist in fol¬
lowing the footsteps of Christ.”
In their diet they forbid every kind of milk and what is made there¬
from and whatever is bom of coition. In this respect they differ from us
130 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

in their way of life. In regard to their sacraments they observe much

secrecy. However, they have openly confessed to us that at their daily
meals, after the manner of Christ and the apostles, by the Lord’s Prayer
they consecrate their food and drink, thus changing it into the body and
blood of Christ so as therefrom to nourish themselves as the members
and body of Christ. We, they say, do not hold to the truth in the sacra¬
ments but to a sort of shadow, a tradition of men.
They have openly confessed, also, that besides [baptism in] water, they
baptize and have been baptized in fire and the Spirit, adducing that
testimony of John the Baptist, who, while baptizing in water, said of
Christ, “He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire”;29 and in
another place, “I baptize with water; but there hath stood one in the
midst of you, whom you know not,”27 as though he were to add: “He
will baptize you with another baptism beyond that with water.” That
such baptism should be performed by the imposition of hands they have
sought to show by the testimony of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles,
who, in describing the baptism which Paul received from Ananias at
Christ’s command, made no mention of water but only of the imposition
of hands.28 Whatever else they find about the imposition of hands, both
in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of Paul, they read as ap¬
plying to this baptism. Anyone among them who is thus baptized they
refer to as “Elect, ” and say that he has the power to baptize others who
shall be found worthy, and to consecrate the body and blood of Christ
at his table. By the imposition of hands one is first received from the
ranks of those they call “auditors” into the number of the “believers”;
thus he gains permission to be present at their prayers until they deem
him sufficiently tested to be made “Elect.” They give no credence to
our baptism. They condemn marriage, but I could not learn from them
the reason, either because they dared not reveal it or, more probably,
because they did not know.
4. There are also certain other heretics in our land, differing com¬
pletely from those described. By their mutual discord and contention
both have been discovered to us. These latter deny that the miracle of
the body of Christ takes place upon the altar, because no priests of the
Church are validly ordained. For, they say, the apostolic office has been
corrupted through involvement in secular business and, by failure to
wage God’s warfare as did Peter, he who sits in the Chair of Peter has
lost the power to ordain which was bestowed upon Peter. And because the
15. Appeal to Bernard and His Reply 131

Apostolic See does not have this power, the archbishops and bishops,20
who lead worldly lives within the Church, cannot receive from that see
the power to ordain anyone. They presume to derive this from the words
of Christ: “The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of
Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and
do,”30 as if to such prelates were given only the power to command and
teach, and nothing more.
Thus they render void the priesthood of the Church and condemn its
sacraments, save baptism alone, and this [they approve] only for adults,
who, they say, are baptized by Christ, no matter who may actually ad¬
minister the sacrament. They do not81 believe in infant baptism because
of82 the text of the Gospel, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved.”88 All marriage they call fornication except that contracted be¬
tween virgins, male and female, basing this belief on the words with
which the Lord answered the Pharisees, “What therefore God hath join¬
ed together, let no man put asunder,” as though God had joined only
such [i.e. virgins] in likeness to the union of the first of mankind. They
also base their belief on His reply to the same persons, who raised
objections to Him about a bill of divorce commanded by Moses: “From
the beginning it was not so,” and also on the words which follow in the
same passage, “He that shall marry her that is put away committeth
adultery”;84 and on the words of the Apostle, “Marriage [is] honorable
in all and the bed undefiled.”88
5. They put no reliance on the intercession of saints. Fasts and other
self-castigations which are performed for sins, they add, are not re¬
quired of the righteous nor even of sinners, because on whatever day the
sinner shall have lamented his sins, all are forgiven. Observances of the
Church, other than those which Christ and the apostles who succeeded
him established, they call mere superstitions. They do not admit that
there is purgatorial fire after death, but teach that souls go immediately
unto eternal rest or punishment at the moment of leaving the body,
pursuant to the words of Solomon, “If the tree fall to the south or to the
north, in what place soever it shall fall there shall it be.”88 And thus they
nullify the prayers and offerings of the faithful for the dead.
6. Holy Father, we solicit your watchful concern over these manifold
evils, and urge that you direct the point of your shaft against the wild
beasts. Answer that “the tower of David to which we fly for
*1

refuge has been sufficiently “built with bulwarks; a thousand bucklers

132 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

hang upon it, all the armor of valiant men.” 37 For we are inexperienced
and inept; we would, therefore, Father, that by your zeal this armor be
assembled in one place, where it may be the more readily available for
our use against these monsters so numerous, and may be the more ef¬
fective in resisting them.
You should also know, my Lord, that those who have returned to the
Church have told us that these heretics have a very large number of ad¬
herents scattered widely throughout the world, among whom are many
of our clergy and monks. Indeed, those who were burned told us during
their defense that this heresy has lain concealed from the time of the
martyrs even to our own day, and has persisted thus in Greece and
certain other lands. They are those heretics who call themselves apostles
and who have their own pope.38 There are others who do not accept our
pope, nor do they acknowledge another in his place. These apostolics39
of Satan have among them women vowed to continence (so they say):
widows, virgins, and their wives, some among the Elect, some among the
believers. In this they claim to be following the example of the apostles,
to whom was granted the right of taking women around with them.
Farewell in the Lord.

B. A SERMON BY BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

AGAINST HERESY
1144
1. I have already preached you two sermons on one verse;40 1 am
preparing to deliver a third if, indeed, it will not bore you to hear it. And
I believe it necessary. For, in truth, what concerns our own domestic
vine—and by this I refer to you—has, I think, been covered well enough
in the two previous sermons to guard that vine against the wiles of three
kinds of foxes: flatterers, slanderers, and certain seductive spirits who
are skilled and practiced in presenting evil under the guise of good.
But I have not adequately treated the vine of the Lord, by which I
mean that vine which has filled the earth and of which we, too, are a
part—a far-spreading vine planted by the hand of the Lord, purchased
with His blood, watered by His word, propagated by His grace, made
fruitful by His spirit. The result of taking the more care of our own vine
is that I have been of less use to the common one. Now, however, the
great number of those who demolish it, the fewness of its defenders, the
difficulty of defense move me in its behalf.
15. Appeal to Bernard and His Reply 133

Concealment causes the difficulty. Although the Church from the be¬
ginning has always had her foxes, they were all soon discovered and
taken; the heretic fought openly (for he was a heretic chiefly for the
reason that he desired to conquer openly) and was overcome. And so
these foxes were easily caught. For what mattered it if a heretic should
remain in the darkness of his obstinacy after the truth had been made
clearly manifest and, as an outcast in bonds, should wither away alone?
The fox was, indeed, known to have been taken, its impiety condemned,
and the impious one itself driven forth, assuredly now to drag out an
existence as a fearful example, bearing no fruit, a sterile thing. Thence¬
forth, in the words of the prophet, such a one would have “dry breasts
and a sterile womb,”41 because error publicly refuted does not sprout
again, and manifest falsehood does not germinate.
2. What shall we do to catch those most malicious foxes, they who
would rather injure than conquer and who do not even wish to disclose
themselves, but prefer to slink about in the shadows? For all previous
heretics the constant desire was to win notoriety through a display of
unusual knowledge. This heresy only, more malignant and crafty than
any other, feeds upon others’ hurt, unmindful of its own renown. Warn¬
ed, I believe, by the examples of the early heresies (which, when un¬
covered, could not escape, but were quickly seized), with a new sort of
craftiness it has been careful to work its “mystery of iniquity,” 44 doing
this the more freely as it is the more furtive. Finally, its members are
reported to have arranged for themselves secret hiding places; “they are
resolute in wickedness”:43 “Swear, truly or falsely, but betray not the
secret.”44 They say, to be sure, that they do not otherwise consent, under
any circumstances, to take an oath, because of that precept of the Gospel,
“Swear not at all, neither by heaven nor by the earth,”45 and so on. “O
foolish and slow of heart,”48 clearly filled with the spirit of the Phari¬
sees, “who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel”!47 Is it unlawful to
swear, but lawful to swear falsely? Is it permissible in the one case alone
and not in the other? From what passage of the Gospel, pray, do you
draw this exception, you who, by your false boast, pass over not a
single iota? It is evident that you are both superstitiously careful about
an oath and shamefully ready with perjury. O perversity! What was
given as cautionary advice, namely, not to swear, these people observe
as obstinately as if it were a commandment; what was ordained as un¬
changeable law, namely, not to swear falsely, they dispense with by their
134 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

own choice, as if it were a matter of no importance. They say, “No, but

we may not reveal our mystery as if it were not “the glory of God
to reveal the speech.” 48 Do they envy the glory of God? I believe, rather,
that, conscious of the shameful nature of their mystery, they blush to
make it known. For they are reported to engage secretly in abominable
and obscene practices, just as the hinder parts of foxes have an evil odor.
3. But I pass over what they would deny. Let them make answer to
proven facts. Can it be that, in accordance with the Gospel precept, they
would avoid giving that which is holy to dogs, or pearls to swine?49 But
this is to confess openly that they, who regard all who are of the Church
as dogs and swine, are not of the Church. Now, they think their secret,
whatever it be, is to be withheld from all, without exception, who do not
belong to their sect. Moreover, in addition to this conviction, they will
not answer questions for fear of exposure, a thing which they assuredly
seek by every means to avoid. But they will not avoid it! Give me a plain
answer, my fine fellow, you who are more wise than behooves you50 and
foolish beyond utterance: This mystery which you hide, is it of God or
is it not? If it is, why do you not make it known to His glory? For “the
glory of God is to reveal the speech.” If [the mystery] is not [of God],
why do you put faith in that which is not of God, unless because you are
a heretic? Therefore, let them [sic] either disclose God’s secret, to the
glory of God, or deny that the mystery is of God and admit that they are
heretics. Or at least let them confess that they are open enemies of the
glory of God, since they are unwilling to reveal that which they know
would be to His glory. The truth of the Scripture stands without doubt,
“It is the glory of kings to conceal the word, the glory of God to reveal
the speech.” 51 Are you unwilling to reveal it? Then you are unwilling to
glorify God.
But perhaps you do not accept this book [i.e. Proverbs (?)]. Be it so.
However, of the Gospel alone they profess to be the sole zealous fol¬
lowers. Let them, then, reply to this passage from the Gospel where it
says, “That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light, and that
which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.” 52 Silence
is no longer permissible. Is that to be kept always secret which God
commands to be made known? Is your gospel always to remain hidden?
I suspect yours is not Paul’s, for he affirms that his is not hidden; he
says, “And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost.” 53
Reflect whether he is speaking of you, among whom the Gospel is found
15. Appeal to Bernard and His Reply 135
to be hidden. What is clearer than that you will perish? Or do you, by
chance, not accept Paul either? I have heard this about some persons.54
For you do not all agree among yourselves about everything, even though
you are one in disagreeing with us.
4. But in any case, if 1 am not mistaken, you all do accept without
distinction, as having equal authority with the Gospel itself, all the
words, writings, and traditions of those who were bodily present with the
Savior. Did they keep their Gospel hidden? Did they remain silent about
the weaknesses of the flesh in Christ (Deum), the dread facts of His
death, the ignominy of the Cross? Of a truth, “their sound hath gone forth
into all the earth.”88 Where is the apostolic model and life of which you
boast? They cry aloud, you whisper. They preach in public, you in a cor¬
ner. They “fly as the clouds,”89 you lurk in your homes, in darkness, and
in cellars. What do you show in yourselves like unto them? Is it that you
do not, indeed, take women about with you on your journeys, but live
with them at home? Going about together is not as much open to sus¬
picion as is living together. But who would suspect anything evil of those
who raised the dead? Do you likewise, and I will believe in man and
woman sleeping together! Otherwise, you are boldly usurping for your¬
selves the prerogative of those whose sanctity you have not. To be
always with a woman and not to know her carnally, is not this more
than to raise the dead? The lesser of these you cannot do, so why shall I
believe that you are capable of the greater? Daily you sit beside a maiden
at the table, your bed is next to hers in the chamber, your eyes meet hers
in conversation, your hands touch hers in work—and do you wish to be
thought continent?57 Perhaps you are, but I doubt it. To me you are a
scandal. Remove the cause of scandal; you may thereby prove that you
are a true follower of the Gospel, as you boast. Does not he who has
been a cause of offense to one member of the Church cast blame upon
that Gospel? You are a cause of offense to the whole Church. You are
a fox destroying the vine. Help me, comrades, to take it! Or rather, do
you take it for us, O holy angels! It is exceedingly crafty. “It is covered
with its iniquity and its wickedness. ”88 Assuredly, anything so small
and cunning may easily deceive human eyes. Will this be true also of
yours? It is to you [holy angels], therefore, as companions of the Bride¬
groom, that the words are addressed: “Take us the foxes, the little fox¬
es.” 89 Therefore, do what you are commanded; take for us this crafty
little fox which till now we have pursued but, alas, in vain! Instruct and
136 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century
advise us how to detect the deception. For to do this is to have taken the
fox, because he does more harm by far as a pretended Catholic than
a real heretic. But a man cannot know what may be in the mind of
another unless he, perchance, has to this end been either enlightened by
the spirit of God or inspired by the solicitude of angels. What sign will
you vouchsafe us whereby this most wicked heresy, skilled in falsehood
not only of speech but of life, may be exposed?
5. Recent damage to the vine, in truth, shows that the fox has been
at work, but I know not by what deceptive trick that most cunning
animal so covers his tracks that it is by no means easy for men to dis¬
cover the points of his entry or departure. Though the mischief is
clear enough, its perpetrator remains invisible, so artfully does he con¬
ceal, in those things which remain in view, every trace of himself.
Finally, if you question the heretic about his faith, nothing is more
Christian; if about his daily converse, nothing more blameless; and what
he says he proves by actions. As witness to his faith you may see the man
go often to church, show respect to priests, offer his gift, make confession,
partake of the sacraments. What could be more orthodox? As regards his
life and conduct, he cheats no one, pushes ahead of no one, does violence
to no one. Moreover, his cheeks are pale with fasting; he does not eat
the bread of idleness; he labors with his hands and thus makes his living.
Where is the fox now? We had it; how did it escape from our hands?
How did it disappear so suddenly? Let us pursue. Let us search it out;
by its fruits we shall know it.## And certainly, the destruction of the
vines is evidence of the fox. Women are leaving their husbands, men are
putting aside their wives, and they all flock to those heretics! Clerics
and priests, the youthful and the adult among them, are leaving their
congregations and churches and are often found in the company of
weavers of both sexes. Is that not serious damage? Is not this the work
of foxes?
6. But perhaps these aberrations are not so clearly displayed by all
of them; and if they were, there is no way of proving the fact. How can
we catch them? Let us consider again their association and living to¬
gether with women, for there is no one of them who does not follow this
manner of life. I question any of them at random:
“Ho, you, good man! Who is this woman and what is her relationship
to you? Is she your wife?”
“No,” he says, “for that is not consistent with my vow.”
15. Appeal to Bernard and His Reply 137

“Your daughter, then?”

“No.”
“What then? Is she not your sister or niece, or at least connected
with you by some degree of consanguinity or marriage?”
“Absolutely none.”
“How, then, do you manage to guard your continence? Surely, this
sort of thing is not permitted you. If you do not happen to know it, the
Church forbids men and women who have taken a vow of chastity to
live together.®1 If you do not wish to offend the Church, send the
woman away. Otherwise, from this one sin others, though not at present
manifest, will undoubtedly be considered probable.”
7. “But,” he says, “can you show me in what text of the Gospel this
is forbidden?”
“You have appealed to the Gospel? To the Gospel you shall go! If
you obey the Gospel, you will not cause scandal, for the Gospel plainly
forbids the causing of scandal. Yet you do so by not putting that woman
away, in accordance with the law of the Church. You had been under
suspicion and now you will be openly adjudged both a despiser of the
Gospel and an enemy of the Church.”
What is your judgment, brethren? If he has been headstrong in not
obeying the Gospel or in not yielding to the Church, how can there be
any uncertainty? Does it not seem clear to you that guile has been re¬
vealed and the fox caught? If he does not put away the woman, he does
not remove the scandal; and if he does not remove the scandal when he
is able to do so, he is to be held a transgressor of the Gospel. What is
the Church to do but cast off one who is unwilling to cast off scandal, if
she is not to be, like him, disobedient? For she is commanded by that
passage in the Gospel not to spare her eye, her hand, or her foot, if it
be an occasion of scandal, but to pluck it out, cut it off, cast it from
her.®2 “If,” He says, “he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as
the heathen and publican.” ®s
8. Have we accomplished anything? I think that we have. We have
taken the fox, since we have discovered the fraud. The false Catholics
who lay hid have been unmasked as the real plunderers of the vine of the
earth. For while you [as a false Catholic] “didst take sweetmeats to¬
gether with me” (I speak of the body and blood of Christ), while “in the
house of God we walked with consent,” ®4 there was room for persuasion,
nay, opportunity for seduction, in harmony with that passage in the
138 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

Book of Wisdom, “The dissembler with his mouth deceiveth his friend.” 65
But now I shall easily avoid “a man that is a heretic, after the first and
second admonition, knowing that he that is such a one is subverted,”86
as Paul wisely remarks. And I shall take due care to be on my guard
that he be not my subverter also.
Hence, it is no small matter that, to quote the Book of Wisdom, “the
unjust be caught in their own snares,” 67 especially those wicked ones
who have chosen to use snares instead of arms. For such have then lost
completely the means of attack and defense. In reality, they are a base
and rustic folk, unlettered and entirely devoid of fighting qualities; in¬
deed, they are foxes and very small ones. Nor are those subjects on
which they are reported to hold wrong opinions capable of real defense;
they are not even subtle or persuasive, except to the minds of country
women and ignorant people, such, certainly, as are all those whom I
have till now found to be of this sect.
For I do not recall having heard anything new or strange in all their
mouthings, numerous as they are, but that which is worn by use and long
agitated by the heretics of old, and which has been well threshed and
winnowed by our theologians. Yet, what those absurdities are should
be told and I shall recount them: partly those things which they have un¬
guardedly confessed to Catholics who questioned them; partly those
things which they have betrayed from time to time when disputing among
themselves; partly, also, those things which some of them have revealed
on returning to the Church. Not that I shall reply to them all, for that is
not necessary, but only that they may become fully known. For this,
another sermon will be necessary.
To the praise and glory of the name of the Bridegroom of the Church,
our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

16. A Warning from Perigueux

Catharist tenets and practices seem to be revealed in this letter, but without
any reference to dualism. No other source tells us anything of the situation
to which Heribert refers, and even its date is uncertain.1 It has been sug¬
gested on no very sure ground that Heribert was a Cistercian monk who
later became archbishop of Torres in Sardinia.2
The letter is translated from Heriberti monachi epistola de haereticis
Petragoricis, in Migne, Patrologia latina, CLXXXI, 1721-22.
16. A Warning from Perigueux 139
circa 1147
I, Heribert, a monk, wish to announce to all Christians how warily
they should deal with the pseudoprophets who are endeavoring to sub¬
vert Christianity, for numerous heretics who say that they follow the
apostolic life have appeared in the neighborhood of Perigueux. They eat
no meat, drink no wine beyond a measure every third day. They make a
hundred genuflections daily,3 and will not handle money. A most cor¬
rupt and secret aspect of their cult is that they do not say the doxology
but instead of “Glory be to the Father” say “For Thine is the kingdom,
and Thou shalt rule over all creation, forever and ever. Amen.”4 They
say that charity is a useless act because no one should possess the
property from which alms can be given. They consider the Mass worthless
and assert that the sacrament should be understood as only a morsel of
bread. If one of them chants the Mass as a tactic of deception, he does
not repeat the Canon5 or partake of the sacrament, but throws the Host
down beside or behind the altar or thrusts it into the missal. They do not
adore the Cross or the likeness of the Lord, but restrain those who would
adore them, for example, by declaring before the likeness of the Lord,
“How pitiful are those who adore Thee,” repeating the psalm “The
idols of the Gentiles,”fl and so on. Very many persons have already gone
over to this deception, not only some who abandoned their noble status,
but also the clergy—priests, monks, and nuns. No one is such a rustic
that, if he but ally himself with them, he may not become in the space of
eight days so wise a scholar that he can be overcome neither in dis¬
cussion nor in citation. There is no way to confine them, for, when they
are captured, no chains will hold them, because the devil himself sets
them free. Thus, perversely, they desire and seek out persons to torture
or execute them. They perform many prodigies: Wherever they have
been bound with iron shackles and placed in a wine tun turned bottom
side up, with the strongest guard posted, they were not to be found on the
morrow until they again disclosed themselves of their own free will; a
wine cask which has recently been emptied is found full in the morning.
They also perform many other wonders. Their leader is called Pons.7

17. An Appealfrom Liege to the Pope

The date given to this letter depends on the identification of the pope who
is addressed by the initial L. For undisclosed reasons, Mart&ne and Durand,
140 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century
the first editors of the manuscript (which is now lost), chose the date 1144,
and thus identified the pope as Lucius II (1144-1145). Fredericq, who
reprints the letter in his Corpus (I, 31-33), accepted the identification as
Lucius II and dated the letter at 1145;1 but Jeffrey Russell, after re-exam¬
ining the evidence, dissented, arguing that the letter was written to Leo IX
(1048-1054).2 There is independent evidence of the existence of heresy in the
vicinity of Lifege in both the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but the similarity
between the errors attributed to the heretics in this letter and those in the
description by Eberwin of Steinfeld (No. 15, part A) seems good reason for
choosing the date 1145.3
The letter is translated from Epistola ecclesiae Leodiensis ad Lucum
papam //, in Edmond Martene and Ursin Durand, Veterum scriptorum et
monumentorum historicum, dogmaticarum, moralium amplissima collectio
(9 vols., Paris, 1724-1733), I, 776-78.
1145
To our very reverend lord and father, L., by the grace of God supreme
pontiff, the church of Liege sends devout prayers and the obedience of
due subjection in Christ.
As we believe and as history itself proves, Divine Providence has
placed the Roman see at the head of the universal Church, by its watch¬
ful care to secure protection for its members and to provide a refuge for
those to whom growing conflict threatens destruction. For this reason we
report to Your Paternity, as one entrusted with the responsibility for all
churches, the newly discovered snares of ancient enemies, so that by
your unremitting care may be rendered unavailing the efforts of those
who, under appearance of religion, lead the minds of simple folk astray.
Then Holy Church may again grow strong in the soundness of the one
faith, which, we find, has in many places been weakened.
From Montwimers,4 which is the name of a village in France, a certain
heresy appears to have overflowed various regions of the land, a heresy
so varied and manifold that it seems impossible to characterize it under
one single name. Some of its devotees have been found among us, were
convicted, and have confessed. A turbulent crowd seized them and
thought to consign them to the flames, but we, by God’s mercy, with
some difficulty snatched nearly all of them from instant death, because
we hoped for better things of them. He whom we have thought it wise
to refer to Your Paternity with his request for absolution is one of their
number.
This heresy comprises different ranks among its adherents: It has
auditors, who are being initiated into error, and believers, who have
17. An Appeal from Liige 141

already been led astray; it has its Christians, its priests, and its other
prelates, just as we have. Its blasphemies are abominable: It denies that
sins are remitted in baptism; it holds the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ to be useless; it asserts that nothing is bestowed by the
imposition of the episcopal hand; it believes that no one receives the
Holy Spirit except by merit of previous good works; it condemns mar¬
riage; it preaches that only in itself does the Catholic Church exist; it
adjudges every oath a crime. But those who are followers of this wicked¬
ness feign to join in celebration of our sacraments in order to veil their
own iniquity.
Until recently this Amery was one of their auditors. For this reason
we have sent him to you, that in accordance with your decision he may
make amends to God and to His Holy Church, and that he may fulfill the
solemn promise made to the blessed apostles when he was in danger of
his life. For he vowed, as he says, that if by their merits and their prayers
he might escape, he would make devout pilgrimage to their shrines to give
thanks for his safekeeping. The other participants in this error we have
distributed among religious houses to await whatever action you may
take for their correction.
Furthermore, we make known to Your Charity that, according to what
we have learned from those whom we apprehended, all the communi¬
ties of the Gallic realm and of our own have been infected to a great
degree with the poison of this error. Therefore, may Your Fatherly Saga¬
city be vigilant against the further and more dangerous spread of this
poison. Let it be burned forthwith with the cautery of salutary diligence,
that it may disappear. Farewell.

18. Eudo of Brittany

The career of the heretic who is known as Eudo or Eon de Stella1 covered
a period of about three years. Attacks on churches and monasteries in
Brittany by bands of his followers were recorded in 1145, along with reports
of sinister and sacrilegious behavior.5* In 1148, their instigator, Eudo, with
some of his lieutenants, was brought as a prisoner before the general council
sitting at Rheims during Lent, where his bizarre claims to divinity aroused
amusement; the council remanded him to protective custody but sent some
of his obstinate followers to the stake. The incident caught the attention of
monastic chroniclers, in whose pages are found more than a dozen notices
of Eudo’s fate.3 Behind the fantasies which he cherished or which rumor put
142 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

to his account there are hints of an aspiration toward preaching and the
penitential life,4 but there is too little evidence for any solid conclusion
about a relationship with contemporary apostolic and reforming movements,
or with the dualist sects which were infiltrating northern Europe. Some
historians at that time and later dismissed Eudo as a lunatic.5
Two of the numerous contemporary references are translated here. The
first is from the anonymous continuation of the world history of Sigibert of
Gembloux, which was written at Gembloux and covers the years 1136-1148.
Its comments are typical of the shorter entries about Eudo in the chronicles.
The second, the most circumstantial of the surviving descriptions of Eudo,
is an excerpt from William of Newburgh’s history of the kings of England.
The author, ranked among the best of twelfth-century historians, wrote his
history between 1199 and his death in 1201.® Even though written so many
years after the event, his account is of interest because he had talked with
some of the surviving followers of Eudo and because his report of magical
happenings illustrates a not uncommon concept of heresy as the devil’s
work. There is an English translation by Joseph Stevenson, The History of
William of Newburgh.
Part A is translated from Sigiberti Gemblacensis chronographia: Con-
tinuatio Gemblacensis, ed. by L. C. Bethmann in Monumenta Germaniae
historica, Scriptores, VI, 389-90, by permission of the publisher Anton Hierse-
mann Verlag and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Part B is translated
by permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and the Kraus Reprint
Corporation from William of Newburgh’s Historia rerum anglicarum i.xiii,
ed. by Richard Howlett, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II
and Richard / (Rolls Series, LXXXII [4 vols., London, 1884-1889]), I,
60-64.

A. A DESCRIPTION OF EUDO BY AN
ANONYMOUS CHRONICLER

1146
The heresy of the Eonists spread among the Bretons.7 Their leader
was a certain man of evil disposition named Eon.8 Although he was un¬
educated and scarcely knew even the letters of the alphabet, he dis¬
coursed and preached from Holy Writ with a filthy mouth. Although not
in holy orders, with impious boldness he disgracefully celebrated Mass,
to the error and destruction of the corrupted people; he even ordained
bishops and archbishops from his following; and he committed many
other wicked violations of divine law. At last, filled with a diabolic spirit,
he exploded into madness so great as to announce—and demand belief
therein—that he was the son of God and that it was he in whose name
%

the priests customarily end the general Collect in church when they say,
18. Eudo of Brittany 143

“Through Him (per eundem) our Lord.” Yet it is well to draw the veil
of silence over such base and abominable things as those heretics who
are called Eonists—that is, the followers of Eon—do in secret, lest they
inspire dread or even breed error in light-minded listeners.

1148
Pope Eugene assembled a general council at Rheims... .9 To this
council the above-mentioned heretic, Eon, was brought by a certain
Catholic bishop of Brittany,10 to appear before the pope. In a public
hearing he was forthwith examined upon his wicked heresy and de¬
clared guilty. He did, indeed, escape with life and limb but, by papal
command and despite the protest of the bishop who had brought him,
was placed in confinement, where he died within a short time.11

B. A DESCRIPTION OF EUDO BY WILLIAM OF NEWBURGH

1148
About the same time, the Roman pope, Eugene, elevated to the head¬
ship of the Apostolic See because of the strictness of his monastic life,
came to France to promote Church discipline and held a general council
at Rheims. While he was sitting therein with a full attendance of bishops
and nobles, there was brought before him a certain pernicious individual,
who, filled with a diabolic spirit, had led astray so many persons by his
cunning trickery that, relying on the number of his followers, he roved
throughout various localities, arousing terror and destroying churches
and monasteries in particular. Finally, after he had raged long and widely,
wisdom overcame evil; he was captured by the archbishop of Rheims 12
and produced at the holy council. Eudo, he was called, with the surname
de Stella; bom a Breton,13 an unlettered and ignorant man, so deranged
by the delusions of demons that, because his name was pronounced
“Eon” in the French tongue, he believed that the phrase recited in
ecclesiastical exorcism, “Through Him (eum) who shall come to judge
the quick and the dead, and the world through fire,” referred to him¬
self. So utterly stupid was he as not to know the difference between
“Eum” and “Eon”; but even more, with amazing blindness, he thought
that he was the ruler and judge of the quick and the dead. He was so
adept in devilish tricks for entrapping the souls of simple persons that
he gathered about himself a deluded throng like flies entangled in
144 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century*

spiders’ webs, all of them devotedly accepting him as their lord of lords.
Sometimes, indeed, he betook himself throughout various regions with
astonishing speed; at other times he tarried with all his followers in wild
and inaccessible places, and thence, at the devil’s urging, burst out
unexpectedly, destroying churches and monasteries particularly.
There gathered around him many of his friends and kinfolk (for he
was not of ignoble birth), either in order to correct him by a family
effort or to ascertain circumspectly how affairs were with him. There
seemed to be, moreover, a remarkable luster about him, a royal sump¬
tuousness and arrogance; those who attended him, free from care and
labor, expensively garbed, feasting ostentatiously, seemed to live in the
greatest joyousness, so much so that many who came to attack him were
beguiled, not by his true aspect but by his illusion of splendor. These
deceptive appearances were produced by demons, by whom that wretch¬
ed throng was nourished in the wilderness, not with real and substantial
sustenance but rather by ethereal foods. For, as we heard later from
some persons who had been of his company and who after his capture
wandered the world over as though doing penance, there were ready
for them as often as they liked, bread, meat, fish, and every sumptuous
food. The truth that these were not solid foods but were ethereal—in¬
visibly supplied by spirits of the air to ensnare rather than to nourish
souls—is made clear by the fact that, at the least belch, weakness would
replace any repletion from such foods and thereupon such hunger would
ensue that they were constrained on the spot to seek the same food
again. Whoever happened upon them by chance and took but the least
taste of their food was mentally affected as he shared the diabolic
repast, and forthwith joined this most filthy throng;14 and whoever re¬
ceived anything of any sort from them was not free from danger. At
length, it is reported that a certain knight, a relative of this wicked fellow,
came to him and warned him plainly to forswear that wicked sect and
return to his own people by communion in the Christian sacrament.15
Slyly keeping the man in suspense, Eon showed him a lavish display of
marvels of many kinds, so as to captivate him by the seductive charm of
the things he saw. “You are our kinsman,” he said. “Take whatever and
as much as you wish of our possessions.” But this prudent man with¬
drew to take his leave, because he had cast his warning to the wind. His
squire, however, seeing a falcon of remarkable beauty, coveted it, to his
own destruction. He asked for and received it and, rejoicing, followed
18. Eudo of Brittany 145
his lord as he then departed. The latter said to him, “Cast away at once
that thing you are carrying, for it is not the bird it seems to be but a
demon in disguise.” Presently the truth of his words became evident.
For after the silly fellow refused to heed the advice, he first complained
of that falcon’s clutching his fist too tightly with its talons; soon it lifted
him by the hand into the air, and he was not seen again thereafter.
Indeed, this evildoer through the devil’s influence so raged about, it
is reported, that armed force was frequently sent out by the magnates to
seek for him and hunt him down, but in vain; he was sought for but not
found. Finally, however, he lost the assistance of demons when they
were no longer suffered to rage through him, for they can do no more
than is permitted them by higher powers in the righteous judgment of
God. He was captured by the archbishop of Rheims with little trouble.
The stupid folk in his retinue were dispersed but those disciples who were
more closely attached to him and were his collaborators were seized
with him.
Now, when he stood before the council and was asked by the supreme
pontiff who he was, he replied, “I am Eon, who shall come to judge the
quick and the dead, and the world through fire.” Moreover, he had a
staff of unusual design, it being forked at its upper end. Asked what the
staff meant to him, he said, “This is a matter of sublime mystery. For
so long as it looks to heaven with its two prongs, as now you see it, God
has two parts of the world and the third part he yields to me. On the
other hand, if I turn these two topmost points of the staff downward
toward earth and raise the lower end, which is single, to point toward
heaven, keeping two thirds of the world for myself, I relinquish only
the third portion to God.” At this the council laughed and mocked the
man so deeply given up to a reprobate sense.16
However, after it was ordered by conciliar decree that he be held in
close custody lest his pestilence again spread, he lived on for only a
short time. His disciples, indeed—on whom he had bestowed great
names, calling one Wisdom, another Knowledge, another Judgment,17
and the others after the same fashion—being escorted first to the
tribunal and then to the flames, chose rather to die than to reform
their lives,18 because they would accept sound doctrine by no argument,
but most obstinately prided themselves on their false names, so much
so that he who was called Judgment, with misplaced confidence threat¬
ened with a vengeful penalty those who held him. I have learned from
146 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

one venerable person who was present when this happened that he
heard the man called Judgment repeatedly exclaim as he was led out to
the punishment, “Earth, open thyself up!” as if the earth ought to gape
at his command to swallow his enemies, like Dathan and Abiron.19 How
great was the power of error once it fixed itself in the heart!

19. Arnold of Brescia

Among the twelfth-century advocates of religious reform who, intent on
purifying the Church, leveled their attacks on its worldly commitments and
wealth, none was more extreme than Arnold of Brescia. It was less his
theological doctrines than the violence of his advocacy of the apostolic ideal
which entitles him to a place among the promoters of heresy. If applied
from top to bottom in the Church, as he proposed, Arnold’s program would
have made a social as well as an ecclesiastical revolution.
The two pieces which follow give the essentials of his career. As for his
influence, no other source names the “heretical sect of the Lombards”
mentioned by John of Salisbury, but before the end of the century a sect
called “Arnoldists” existed in northern Italy. They denied the validity of
sacraments administered by unworthy priests, refused to admit the coercive
or judicial power of the Church, insisted on the right of lay preaching, and
advocated poverty as the essential condition of a true priesthood. That they
were directly the product of Arnold’s teaching is probable but not assured.1
Part A below is from the work of John of Salisbury (b. 1115-1120), who
was one of the great literary figures of the twelfth century. After nearly
twelve years of study at Paris and Chartres, he took service in the papal
court under Eugene III; then, perhaps in 1153 or 1154, he became secretary
to Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury and thereafter, as friend and adviser,
shared the exile of Thomas Becket and witnessed his martyrdom. The last
four years before his death in 1180 John spent as bishop of Chartres. His
Historia pontificalis was written not later than 1164. John’s remarks about
Arnold may not rest on firsthand observation, but they do afford a most
valuable appreciation of him by a well-informed contemporary.2 Miss
Marjorie Chibnall has translated the Historia pontificalis under the title
John of Salisbury*s Memoirs of the Papal Court (London, 1956); the excerpt
given below is taken from that translation (chap. XXXI, pp. 62-65) by
permission of the publishers, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd.
The account in part B comes from the work of Otto of Freising, who was
born about 1110, studied at Paris, entered the Cistercian order, and from
1137 to his death in 1158 was bishop of Freising. A member of the ruling
house of Germany (he was uncle to the Emperor Frederick I), Otto was at
once churchman, scholar, and man of affairs. He was also one of the ablest
historians of the twelfth century. The excerpts which we publish here are
from his biography of the emperor, of which Otto had completed only the
first two books, covering events to the year 1156, when death overtook him.8
19. Arnold of Brescia 147

We are indebted to Professor Charles C. Mierow for permission to print

portions of his translation, The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa by Otto of
Freising and His Continuator, Rahewin i.xxviii (xxvii), 11. xxviii, translated
with the collaboration of Richard Emery (Records of Civilization, XLIX
[New York, 19531), pp. 61, 142-44.
In reprinting these translations, we have retained many of the translators’
notes, designated by [C] and [M], respectively; on occasion we have added
further comment of our own.

A. JOHN OF SALISBURY’S ESTIMATE OF ARNOLD

1149
Negotiations for peace were proceeding between the pope and the
Romans,4 and numerous legations sped to and fro between the two
parties. But there were many obstacles in the way of peace, the greatest
of all being the refusal of the Romans to expel Arnold of Brescia,5 who
was said to have bound himself by oath to uphold the honour of the city
and the Roman republic. The Romans in their turn promised him aid
and counsel against all men, and explicitly against the lord pope; for
the Roman church had excommunicated him and ordered him to be
shunned as a heretic. This man was a priest by office, a canon regular
by profession, and one who had mortified his flesh with fasting and
coarse raiment: of keen intelligence, persevering in his study of the
scriptures, eloquent in speech, and a vehement preacher against the
vanities of the world. Nevertheless he was reputed to be factious and a
leader of schism, who wherever he lived prevented the citizens from
being at peace with the clergy. He had been abbot of Brescia, and when
the bishop was absent on a short visit to Rome had so swayed the minds
of the citizens that they would scarcely open their gates to the bishop
on his return. For this he was deposed by Pope Innocent and expelled
from Italy; crossing the Alps into France he became a disciple of
Peter Abailard, and together with Master Hyacinth,6 who is now a
cardinal, zealously fostered his cause against the abbot of Clairvaux.
After Master Peter had set out for Cluny,7 he remained at Paris on the
Mont Sainte Genevieve, expounding the scriptures to scholars at the
church of St. Hilary where Peter had been lodged. But he had no listen¬
ers except poor students who publicly begged their bread from door to
door to support themselves and their master. He said things that were
entirely consistent with the law accepted by Christian people, but not at
148 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

all with the life they led. To the bishops he was merciless on account of
their avarice and filthy lucre; most of all because of stains on their
personal lives, and their striving to build the church of God in blood.
He denounced the abbot,8 whose name is renowned above all others
for his many virtues, as a seeker after vainglory, envious of all who won
distinction in learning or religion unless they were his own disciples. In
consequence the abbot prevailed on the most Christian king to expel
him from the Frankish kingdom; from there he returned to Italy after
Pope Innocent’s death and, after promising reparation and obedience to
the Roman church, was received at Viterbo by Pope Eugenius.9 Penance
was imposed on him, which he claimed to have performed in fasts, vigils
and prayers in the holy places of the city ; and again he took a solemn
oath to show obedience. Whilst dwelling in Rome under pretext of
penance he won the city to his side, and preaching all the more freely
because the lord pope was occupied in Gaul he built up a faction known
as the heretical sect of the Lombards.10 He had disciples who imitated
his austerities and won favour with the populace through outward
decency and austerity of life, but found their chief supporters among
pious women. He himself was frequently heard on the Capitol and in
public gatherings. He had already publicly denounced the cardinals,
saying that their college, by its pride, avarice, hypocrisy and manifold
shame was not the church of God, but a place of business 11 and a den
of thieves,12 which took the place of the scribes and Pharisees amongst
Christian peoples. The pope himself was not what he professed to be—
an apostolic man and shepherd of souls—but a man of blood who main¬
tained his authority by fire and sword,13 a tormentor of churches and
oppressor of the innocent, who did nothing in the world save gratify his
lust and empty other men’s coffers to fill his own. He was, he said, so
far from apostolic that he imitated neither the life nor the doctrine of the
apostles, wherefore neither obedience nor reverence was due to him:
and in any case no man could be admitted who wished to impose a yoke
of servitude on Rome, the seat of Empire, fountain of liberty and mistress
of the world.

A. ARNOLD’S INFLUENCE IN ROME AND HIS DEATH

AS DESCRIBED BY OTTO OF FREISING

1147
During these days,14 a certain Arnold, who wore a religious garb but
19. Arnold of Brescia 149
was by no means faithful to it, as was evident from his teaching, entered
the city of Rome. Because of his hatred for the honors paid to the Church,
and seeking to restore the dignity of the senate and the equestrian order
to their ancient status, he aroused almost the entire City, and especially
the populace, against his pope.

1155
Now on his way to the City the king encamped near Viterbo. Thither
came the Roman pope, Hadrian,15 with his cardinals, and was received
with the honor due to his office. He was given a deferential hearing as
he uttered bitter complaints against his people. For the aforesaid people,
since their endeavor to reinstate the order of senators, in their rash daring
did not shrink from inflicting many outrages on their popes. There was
this additional aggravation of their seditious conduct, that a certain
Arnold of Brescia, of whom mention has been made above, under guise
of religion and—to use the words of the Gospel16—acting as a wolf in
sheep’s clothing, entered the City, inflamed to violence the minds of the
simple people by his exceedingly destructive doctrines, and induced—
nay, rather, seduced 17—a countless throng to espouse that cause.
That Arnold, a native of Italy from the city of Brescia, a cleric ordain¬
ed only as a lector of the church there, had once had Peter Abelard as
his teacher. He was a man not indeed dull of intellect, yet abounding
rather in profusion of words than in the weight of his ideas; a lover of
originality and eager for novelty. The minds of such men are inclined to
devise heresies and the tumult of schisms. Returning from his studies in
France to Italy, he assumed the religious habit that he might deceive the
more, assailing all things, carping at everything, sparing no one—a
disparager of the clergy and of bishops, a persecutor of monks, a flatterer
only of the laity. For he used to say that neither clerics that owned
property, nor bishops that had regalia, nor monks with possessions could
in any wise be saved. All these things belong to the prince, and should
be bestowed of his beneficence for the use of the laity only. Besides this,
he is said to have held unreasonable views with regard to the sacrament
of the altar and infant baptism. While he was keeping the church of
Brescia in uproar in these and other ways, which it would take too long to
enumerate, and was maliciously defaming ecclesiastical personalities to
the laity of that land, who have itching ears as regards the clergy, he
was accused by the bishop and pious men of that city at the great council
150 Late Eleventh to Mid-Twelfth Century

held at Rome under Innocent.18 Therefore the Roman pontiff decided

that silence should be imposed upon the man, that his pernicious teach¬
ing might not spread to more people. And thus it was done.
So that man, fleeing from Italy, betook himself to the lands beyond
the Alps,19 and there assuming the role of teacher in Zurich, a town of
Swabia, he sowed his pernicious doctrine for some time. But when he
learned of the death of Innocent he entered the City, near the beginning
of the pontificate of Eugenius. As he found it aroused to rebellion against
its pope, he incited it all the more to revolt, not following the counsel of
the wise man who says of a situation of this kind: “Heap not wood upon
his fire.” 20 He set forth the examples of the ancient Romans, who by
virtue of the ripened judgment of the senate and the disciplined integrity
of the valiant spirit of youth made the whole world their own. Wherefore
he advocated that the Capitol should be rebuilt, the senatorial dignity
restored, and the equestrian order reinstituted. Nothing in the adminis¬
tration of the City was the concern of the Roman pontiff; the ecclesias¬
tical courts should be enough for him. Moreover, the menace of this
baneful doctrine began to grow so strong that not only were the houses
and splendid palaces of Roman nobles and cardinals being destroyed,
but even the reverend persons of some of the cardinals were shamefully
treated by the infuriated populace, and several were wounded.21 Al¬
though he incessantly and irreverently perpetrated these things and others
like them for many days (that is, from the death of Celestine22 until
this time) and despised the judgment of the pastors, justly and canonically
pronounced against him, as though in his opinion they were void of all
authority, at last he fell into the hands of certain men and was taken
captive within the limits of Tuscany. He was held for trial by the prince
and finally was brought to the pyre by the prefect of the City.23 After
his corpse had been reduced to ashes in the fire, it was scattered on the
Tiber, lest his body be held in veneration by the mad populace.
 20. Civil Unrest as a Background for Heresy
We use this excerpt from the life of St. Gaidinus, archbishop of Milan
(1166-1176), to illustrate the lack of precision about heresy in the conven¬
tional narrative sources for Italy in the twelfth century. Yet heresy was rife
there, especially in the rapid spread of Catharism after 1160, and Milan
was no exception.1 In the struggle of the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick
I, to assert control in Lombardy, and the subsequent conflict of the emperor
with Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), Milan suffered severely. When it was
captured and sacked by imperial forces in 1162, the archbishop went into
exile with his clergy, including Gaidinus, a member of the famous Della
Scala family. In 1165 Gaidinus was made a cardinal and in 1166, still in
exile, became archbishop of Milan. In the following year, he returned to his
see to begin a notable career in rebuilding the city and reconstituting the
clergy of his province. He died in 1176. For a brief reference to St. Gaidinus
in English, see Thurston and Attwater, eds., Butler's Lives of the Saints,
rev. ed., II, 122-23.
This piece is translated from Vita sancti Galdini, in Acta sanctorum,
April 18, II, 591.

circa 1176
In due time he [Archbishop Gaidinus] consecrated nearly all his suf¬
fragans and with the help of God the city and his church were finally
restored to their original condition. The heresy of the Cathars 2 began to
spread in the city and was the cause of growing dissension and schism.
It grew so much under pressure of sin that many persons publicly
preached it and other errors with reckless audacity and the souls of
many simple folk were caught in the snares of the devil’s deceit. Then
the holy man set himself to combat that deadly plague. By many dis¬
courses and much preaching he recalled the people from that foolish and
vicious error and, by instructing them in the fundamentals of the Catholic
faith in so far as he was able, he advanced his cause by both word and
example.
152 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

21. The Letter of Master Vacarius against the

Errors of Hugo Speroni
The Speronists 1 comprised a minor sect which apparently never spread far
from its place of origin in Piacenza. Their founder, Hugo Speroni, had
studied civil law, probably about 1145, at Bologna, where his friend
Vacarius shared his lodgings. Vacarius went on to a distinguished career
as one of the first professors of Roman law in England; Speroni became a
consul in Piacenza. As such, he was active in litigation over family and
communal claims against the monastery of St. Julia in the matter of harbor
and bridge revenues. How much this controversy may have influenced the
bent of his thought is conjectural, but by about 1177 Speroni was committed
to a position of hostility to the Church and its ministry. He denied the
validity of the priesthood, which he regarded as indelibly stained by sin. He
denied, too, the need of the sacraments of baptism, the Eucharist, or con¬
fession, because justification depended not on them but on an inner purity.
Nor was salvation earned by good works, for the inner holiness which jus¬
tified man was the gift of God to those whom He predestined to receive it
and was not augmented by the externals of piety. In this respect Speroni has
been interpreted as a twelfth-century forerunner of Luther and Calvin.2
To his old friend Vacarius, Hugo Speroni sent a copy of a work ex¬
pounding his views. Vacarius replied in a friendly tone but with an extensive
refutation of the errors he had discovered in Speroni’s tract. The only
manuscript of this reply bears the title Liber contra multiplies et varios
errores [book against many and various errors]. In the Prologue to that
reply, which is translated here, Vacarius enumerates the major points of
Speroni’s teaching and refutes each one briefly and firmly but without
rancor. All that is known of Speroni, together with an edition of Vacarius’s
work, is presented in the intensive study by Ilarino da Milano which pre¬
cedes his edition of the treatise.
The translation is from Ilarino da Milano, UEresia di Ugo Speroni nella
confutazione del Maestro Vacario: Testo inedito del secolo XU con studio
storico e dottrinale (Studi e Testi, CXV [Vatican City, 1945]), pp. 475-81,
by kind permission of the editor and of the Biblioteca Vaticana.

1177-1185
Here begins the Prologue of the Book against Many and Various
Errors. To Hugo Speroni, once his companion and friend, Vacarius,
called Master, sends good wishes, to him personally and for the oppor¬
tune betterment of us both.

[A] I would not have you think that I have forgotten the brotherly
affection of companionship and intimacy which was so strong between
21. Vacarius’s Letter to Speroni 153

us in school—so strong, indeed, that when we shared the same lodgings

it pleased you to take my advice in your affairs. Therefore, not merely
the motive of brotherliness but of that friendship to which I referred
more particularly moves me to sympathy with you in your tribulations.
The graver these are, the more earnestly they weigh upon me and arouse
me to compassion for you who are beset by many woes. For, as I have
learned from your letter and from talking with other persons, you have
disturbed the Church of God not a little, to the hazard of your soul’s
salvation. You publish many injurious things against the Church in a
certain book which my nephew Leonard delivered to me in your name.
I have read and reread it, again and again. Although some excellent
passages are to be found therein, on re-examination I discovered more
which, however worthy and valid they may be, are nevertheless cor¬
rupted and rendered worthless by the addition of certain untruths, partic¬
ularly in that they are equivocally phrased and directed to a wicked con¬
clusion.
[B] On the priests of the Old Law: In the first place, citing the
prophets, you point out many and various defects of the priests of the
Old Law, failings by which they were cut off from God; and likewise,
indeed, much more, are our priests estranged, so that, citing Dionysius
the Areopagite,3 you deem them by the rule there stated not to be priests.
To prove this, you have taken pains to collect all the recorded texts. Yet
these do not pertain to the priestly office itself but to the worthiness of
the priests’ lives; that is, they do not lose the power of the office but the
grace of God, and it is thus that they are cut off from God by such
faults. The sum of your proposition in other succeeding articles is the
same and the argument in refutation is the same; that is, that although
they may be unclean, thieves and robbers, nevertheless, they remain
priests, unless, for due cause, they are lawfully removed from office.
[C] You labor to prove by the Apostle that only the pure may be
purified;4 but I will show presently that you do not understand the
Apostle. Now what is the meaning of “purify” but to remove the un¬
cleanliness which makes one impure? For as every impurity makes one
unclean before God, as it does in the sight of men, so also everyone who
is unclean among men is unclean before God, even, indeed, all who are
predestined to eternal life. Moreover, those who are murderers, adul¬
terers, fornicators, or are stained by any vice are surely unclean before
God. When even the angels themselves were held to be unclean in His
154 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

sight,5 and when even such as these were purified, it is not, as you think,
that the pure are purified, but rather that the unclean are cleansed of their
impurities.
Furthermore, you say that just as one who is polluted in body—for
example, by excrement—fouls whoever touches him to cleanse him, so
the one who is polluted in soul does not purify but stains whomever he
may touch in purification. But this does not hold together very well. In¬
tangible defilements, such as [are incurred in] murders and thefts, are
not transferred from one soul to another as easily as bodily filth is
passed from one body to another. Indeed, you go astray by the fact that
you quote: “Whatsoever a person toucheth who is unclean, he maketh
it unclean”;6 also, “If one that is unclean by occasion of a soul shall
touch bread or pottage or shall consecrate anything, the whole shall be
defiled.”7 But this is to be understood only in regard to the one polluted,
who touches or consecrates anything; namely, it is only in relation to
himself that what he touches or consecrates is regarded as though it
were intrinsically unclean.
It will not, however, be held to be unclean or defiled either intrinsically
or in so far as it affects other persons. Thus, the Lord himself said that
He was profaned by the priests, declaring, “I was profaned in the midst
of them.” 8
By reason of this error of yours, you render a large part of your book
worthless and full of falsity, although many things which are good in
themselves may be found intermingled therein.
[D] On the baptism of children: You put together a captious and
slanderous attack upon infant baptism by following, without much in¬
sight, the verbal formulas and noting in them a defect of misrepresen¬
tation where none exists.
The words which are repeated by the priest and by the one who holds
the child are not used in baptizing for the purpose of stating that of
which they are a sign, but in order to make manifest that which is ac¬
complished in baptism, which is, reception into the faith of Christ. The
reason for baptizing is, indeed, clearly set forth by these words so that it
may be better known by everyone, lest at some time it might in some way
be called into doubt; for peril to the soul is incurred if a child is baptized
for some reason other than this.
This you do not accept because you ignore original sin, washed away
by baptism, and the cause thereof, which the Lord voiced in respect of
21. Vacarius’s Letter to Speroni 155
those who were circumcised, when He said: “The child who shall not be
circumcised, that soul shall be taken away from his people”; and He
added the reason therefor: “Because he hath broken my covenant.” 9
For in Adam all have broken the covenant not to eat of the apple which
the Lord made with Adam in Eden. Therefore, just as carnal circumcision
was once performed out of necessity, so now is the ablution of water, lest
the soul of the child be taken away from his people.
[E] Of the body of Christ: With much vanity and deceptiveness you
are in error about the body and blood of Christ. For you pretend that
some persons in the Church explain that Christ is sacrificed on the altar,
mangled and chewed, suffers, and mystically dies, even though it is
certain that “Christ died once,” and that “death shall have no more
dominion over Him,” 10 so that He cannot suffer, be broken or bruised
with the teeth.
If you ask how His flesh can be eaten, one thing I know, that it is
not mangled by the teeth in a carnal sense. For the manner and mode of
eating to which allusion here is made is entirely unique, not natural and
common; yet human reason may fail even to account for a natural man¬
ner of eating. Lo, from five loaves, five thousand people were well fed.11
Is it not silly and foolish to ask how this may have been done? There¬
fore, although the whole Church believes, in reliance on the words of the
Lord which the Apostle also followed,12 that the flesh and blood of
Christ are taken into the mouth, you alone gainsay it with numerous un-
4

truths and with sophistical and vexatious scoffing, as will be more fully
apparent later.
[F] In error also, you say that the Lord Jesus enjoined His disciples
to share a meal in His memory.
When He .. ,13 shared only bread with them all and, after the meal,
gave them one cup, He commanded that all drink from it and that they
do this in commemoration of Him; as for the meal itself, He gave them
no instruction. Nor did the Apostle give any to the Corinthians, but he
did reprove them because the manner of their eating, when they came
into the church to eat, was not that of sharing the Lord’s Supper. For
the Lord’s Supper will have so much love that the Lord will give His
body to be eaten; but their supper was of such impiety that, glutting
themselves to drunkenness, they, to their own perdition, gave nothing
to the brethren who were impoverished and hungry.14 For that reason
they could not worthily come to the body of the Lord. What is conse-
156 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

crated today in the Mass by a priest in the Church is not the Lord’s
Supper nor does it symbolize it; it is rather that which the Lord taught
His disciples, which is to do for others in memory of Him what He
himself did for them, blessing and giving to them the bread and the
chalice of benediction, saying, “Take, eat and drink of this, all of you;
this is my body and my blood,”15 and so on.
The Mass is the most holy and well-considered office established in
the Church of God, comprising, according to the most pious teaching of
the Apostle, “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings,” lft
to the mutual salvation of the living and the dead. The sacrifice of the
Lord’s body and blood which is celebrated at the end of the Mass occurs
for him who participates therein. Nor is the ministry of an unworthy
priest who may by chance minister in the Mass an impediment in respect
of other persons, although he may, in himself, be unworthy, for the
Apostle speaks in this wise: “Neither he that planteth is anything, nor he
that watereth, but God alone who giveth the increase,” 17 that is, the
effect itself.
Nor is it an obstacle, as you think, that thus it may seem that God
had fellowship with the unclean. Never! Because wicked men minister
daily before God, may one say that He is the companion of the wicked?
Even the most impious Judas ministered especially to Him, but from
this he formed no fellowship with Him.
[G] Also that argument of yours, in which you assert that God has
forbidden that a sinner expound His statutes because of the fact that He
said to the sinner, “Why dost thou declare my justices?” 18 is worthless.
Indeed, He demanded this of him so that the latter would know that,
as far as concerned himself, he labored in vain in expounding the
statutes, for he would obtain no reward. This is not true of the effect on
other persons, among whom it is difficult to know and recognize who
are sinners and who are not. For even if one may know them to be
sinners or Pharisees, one should observe the good things which they
say.19 Moreover, it is ridiculous to adopt your conjecture by which we
must ask who are sinners and who are not so that we do not hearken
to them if they be sinners.
You, however, go further in the declaration that he is not a Christian
who is not a son of God; that is, who has not, in your words, the law of
God written on his heart. For, by your assertion, even if one has been
baptized and is indubitably dean, purified, and sanctified, one may not
be a Christian except as one is a saint.
21. Vacanus's Letter to Speroni 157
But were they not Christians to whom the Apostle wrote the words:
“I hear that when you are come together in the church there is schism
among you”? 20 And again, “One is hungry, another is drunk.”21 Could
ever sanctity own such vices as schism, as impious drunkenness? Such
certainly are the enemies of love and sanctity, yet these people met to¬
gether in the faith of Christ in the church, that is, in a house of prayer.
Indeed, the Apostle considered them to be Christian, for he said: “Do I
praise you?” and later, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of
Christ. Therefore there are many infirm and weak among you, and many
asleep.”23 He numbered them among the Christians, although they were
poor and weak. Therefore not all Christians are saints.
[H] Hugo’s opinion: You also think that because it is said, “All the
Law is fulfilled in one word,” 24 that by this phrase the Apostle ex¬
plained that no burden but the love of Christ—that is, without works—
is imposed on us by law.
The Apostle obviously denies this in the words, “If any man will not
work, neither let him eat.” 25 For the liberty which is given to us by the
law of Jesus Christ does not free us from subjection to the Law and its
works nor from subjection to the works of love.
Likewise, in much ignorance and unwisdom you protest against us
because out of love we observe Sundays [and also]26 saints’ days. In
religious celebrations such as these we ought to abstain day and night
from lowly labor of our hands, in accordance with the teaching of the
prophetic Scriptures,27 so that we may spend all of such periods, as the
Apostle says, in “psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles,” 28 and
prayers to the honor of God.
[I] Surely, although you are in no small way at fault in the errors
already enumerated, you obviously go much too far when you say that
we are enjoined to preach the word of God, to baptize in water, to praise
God, and to undertake similar activities, yet, if these be undertaken, they
justify not, nor avail for salvation. But in a preceding passage on another
topic you show by the words of the Lord—which are that thou shalt not
kill, thou shalt not commit adultery29—that these commandments, if
observed, do avail for eternal life; yet it is a far better thing to do good
than to refrain from evil.
Nay, rather, it is most absurd to suppose that the Apostle, who
subjected himself to so many labors, so many wrongs, so many wants,
in preaching to convert the nations, deserved no reward for the labor of
158 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

such preaching. For the Apostle himself says in the letter to the Corin¬
thians: “I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase. And
every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.” 30
Moreover, what reply was made to the man in Horace who boasted
that he had not committed murder? When he said vauntingly, “I have
not killed a man,” the answer to him was, “You shall not then feed the
carrion crows on the cross,” 31 as if this were reward enough. Therefore
if this man deserves eternal life because he sins not, how much more will
that one who preaches, who prays, who does good works, receive
reward in proportion to his labor, through that justice which justifies
those who labor thus, giving to each according to his own desserts.
[L] In conclusion, I must not pass over this point which touches on
the matter of circumspection, namely, that the ill-advised definitions in
which your work abounds plunge those who accept them into the various
errors found in the work itself, as will appear later. For although it is
particularly laid down that “in law definitions are hazardous,”32 yet they
are not without danger also in other subjects, and consequently it is
necessary to proceed cautiously when propounding something in general
terms or in making definitions. Since you have paid no heed to this, I
find many harmful matters embedded in your book, to all of which .. .33
I have replied carefully to these; what should be said in answer to others
which might be censurable can be readily comprehended.

22. The Origins of the Humiliati

The impulse toward the expression of piety by lives of simple poverty and
evangelism conceived to be in imitation of the apostles was an increasingly
potent stimulus of religious diversity in the second half of the twelfth cen¬
tury. Sometimes groups with such aims broke away from or were thrust out
of the Church, but occasionally they were able later to find a way of return,
especially when Innocent III (1198-1216) strove to conserve this religious
impulse for the Church. The most sweeping of such movements—we are
speaking of those which antedated the great mendicant orders of the thir¬
teenth century—was embodied by the Waldenses, but even before their
influence had reached Italy comparable developments were appearing there.
The Humiliati, described in this short passage, perhaps reacting against the
developing commercialism of the time, expressed their pious aspirations in a
commitment to personal poverty, communal life, and evangelism within
their own class of workers. Their defiance of restrictions on preaching led
22. The Origins of the Humiliati 159
to their excommunication in 1184. Some fifteen years later, Innocent III
drew some of the Humiliati back to the Church, approving an organization
in three orders: Laymen living with their families, laymen and women in
semimonastic communities of workers, and a clerical order including the
religious and priests. Those who remained apart from the Church seem to
have been absorbed by the Waldenses and to have played a part in the
internal dissensions of that group (see No. 45, parts B and C; and No. 46).
There is a considerable literature on the Humiliati, which expresses
various interpretations of their character and significance; for example,
Zanoni, Gli Umiliati, and Girolamo Tiraboschi, Vetera humiliatorum monu¬
mental each of which prints various sources. Convenient short accounts are
Stefano, Riformatori ed eretici, pp. 125-84; Felix Vernet, “Humilies,” Die-
tionnaire de theologie catholique, VII, 313-21; Ilarino da Milano, UEresia
di Ugo Speroni, pp. 455-57; and in English, Davison, Forerunners of St.
Francis, chap. V.
The excerpt here translated is from the chronicle of an anonymous canon
of Premontre who wrote in Laon. For the later years of the twelfth century
and the first part of the thirteenth it is regarded as generally trustworthy.
The translation is from Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis, ed. by
Georg Waitz, in Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, XXVI, 449-
50, by permission of Anton Hiersemann Verlag and the Monumenta Ger¬
maniae Historica.

circa 1178-1184
At that time there were certain inhabitants of Lombard towns who
lived at home with their families, chose a peculiar form of religious life,
refrained from lies, oaths, and law suits, were satisfied with plain clothing,
and presented themselves as upholding the Catholic faith. They ap¬
proached the pope 1 and besought him to confirm their way of life. This
the pope granted them, provided that they did all things humbly and
decently, but he expressly forbade them to hold private meetings or to
presume to preach in public. But spurning the apostolic command, they
became disobedient, for which they suffered excommunication.2 They
called themselves Humiliati, because they did not use colored cloth for
clothing but restricted themselves to plain dress.

23. The Heresy of the Cathars

in Lombardy
During the two decades after the middle of the twelfth century, the heresy
of the Cathars was making substantial gains; but, as far as the sources now
160 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

known to us disclose, it was not until the Cathars were already well en¬
trenched in northern Italy that detailed written evidence of their doctrines
began to be made available to their orthodox contemporaries. The treatise
here translated was not the first to describe them,1 but the historical events
it recounts began soon after mid-century and for that reason we place it
here. Of the author we know no more than that he was a Lombard, perhaps
from Milan, and so well informed about Catharist groups and leaders that
he himself may have been a member of the sect at one time.2 His work falls
into three divisions: (1) a narrative of the growth and proliferation of Italian
dualist sects; (2) a description of the tenets of several of their “churches”
about the beginning of the thirteenth century; and (3) a short list of the
heretical hierarchy at the time of writing. In this form the treatise escaped
the notice of later historians of heresy until recently, although the first, or
narrative, portion had been published separately by Nicholas Vignier in
1601 from a manuscript now lost.3 Polemical writers of the thirteenth century
also made excerpts from the second part and in later centuries, when their
various works were edited, the relationships and ultimate source of these bor¬
rowed passages created a puzzle for scholars.4 Not until 1949 did Father An¬
toine Dondaine find the treatise in its complete form in manuscript, establish
its authenticity, and edit it.
The De heresi catharorum5 is one of the three most important sources
for the history of Catharisms in Italy. It and the treatise on heresy by Anselm
of Alessandria, translated in Nos. 24 and 54, narrate events arising in the
second half of the twelfth century from the extension of Bogomil influence
to Italy. A third summa, that of Rainerius Sacconi (No. 51), is the major
source for the situation of the Italian Cathars after they had split into
competing churches,6 producing persistent divisions and a new nomen¬
clature of heresy.7 The first comprehensive study of the Italian churches
and their hierarchy was in Dondaine, “La Hidrarchie cathare, 11-111,”
Archivum fratrum praedicatorum, XX (1950), 278-305. Borst (pp. 231-39)
gives a catalogue of sects and their hierarchy which extends and amends that
of Dondaine.8
The following translation is made from Antoine Dondaine, “La Hierarchie
cathare en Italie, I: Le ‘De heresi catharorum in Lombardia/ ” Archivum
fratrum praedicatorum, XIX (1949), 306-12, by permission of Father Don¬
daine and the Istituto storico domenicano di S. Sabina. We retain in brackets
the numbers and titles for subdivisions which were supplied by Dondaine.

1150-1200 (written circa 1200-1214)

[ 1. How the Schism Began.] In the early days, when the heresy of the
Cathars began to increase in Lombardy, they first had a certain bishop
named Mark,9 under whose rule all the Lombard, Tuscan, and Trevisan
[heretics] were governed, Mark was consecrated in the sect of Bulgaria.10
Then there came to Lombardy from Constantinople a man called Papa
23. Cathars in Lombardy 161
Nicheta,11 who began to declaim against the Bulgarian consecration
which Mark had received. This raised doubts in the minds of Bishop
Mark and his followers; he gave up the Bulgarian consecration and ac¬
cepted, at the hands of Nicheta himself,12 that of Drugunthia,13 and in
this sect of Drugunthia he and all his associates remained for some time.
Somewhat later, a man named Petracius 14 came with companions from
across the sea and brought news about one Simon,15 a bishop of Drugun¬
thia, from whom stemmed the consecration received from Nicheta.
Petracius said that Simon had been discovered in a room with a woman
and had committed other acts contrary to doctrine. Now, by the time
Petracius appeared, Mark had already died and another person, named
John Judeus,16 who had been ordained as a bishop by Mark, had suc¬
ceeded him. Some persons were thrown into doubt by the testimony of
Petracius about the consecration derived from Simon; some were not.
On this account a quarrel arose among them and thereby they divided
into two groups. It came to such a pass, moreover, that one group
adhered to John Judeus, the other chose as bishop Peter of Florence.17
In this situation the two parties remained for several years.
Some of the wiser heads among them, grieved by this schism and
hoping to restore them to unity, hit on the plan to have delegates chosen
from both parties, and these they dispatched in a group to a certain
bishop north of the Alps, with the agreement that they would submit
without demur to the opinion of the bishop, however he should decide
on the question of the schism among them.18 Now, the bishop, once he
had heard and carefully considered the arguments of both parties,
handed down this verdict: These two bishops of Lombardy and their
followers should meet together; lots should be cast between the two
bishops, John Judeus and Peter of Florence, respectively; to whichever
one of them on whom the lot of the episcopate should fall, the other
would submit; and the whole body of followers, now divided into two
groups, should obey him. And the bishop, thus chosen by lot, should
go to Bulgaria to receive consecration as bishop; and when he returned
home again after receiving the Bulgarian consecration, their whole com¬
munity should be reconsoled by the imposition of hands. When they
had received this decision the delegates came back to Lombardy and
made it public. After a period was fixed within which the judgment
should be acted upon and the lots cast, Peter of Florence, bishop of one
group, refused to carry out the decision and cast lots. Thereupon, he
162 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

was deposed from the office of bishop by his followers and thus, pursuant
to the decision, he ceded legal claim to all episcopal authority to John
Judeus, who was willing to carry it out. But some of the other party,
opposed to John Judeus, refused out of ill will to submit to him.
Meanwhile, some wiser ones had approached John Judeus and had
prayerfully besought him in all humility to resign the episcopal office
because he was disliked by so many, asserting that from this withdrawal
could come peace and concord among them. They added that they would
then choose one from his group to represent him, and one from the other
party would be chosen in place of Peter of Florence, who had refused
to carry out the decision. Lots would be cast by the two persons selected,
as had been proposed in the verdict; a bishop would be chosen by that
lot and he would exercise episcopal authority over the whole community
without any reservation.19 John was persuaded by these pleas, realizing
that he could not preside in peace and tranquillity, and, hopeful of
restoring the sundered group to unity, submitted to their recommendation
and divested himself of what power he had. The report of this was spread
widely.
Thus it was that within the period which they had already set, they
assembled in a place called Mosio 20 and there decided on the following
procedure: One party would choose a man from the other group, whom¬
soever they wished, and vice versa. Thus it transpired that from the
party of John Judeus a man named Garattus21 was selected by the
other group, and from the opposing party of Peter of Florence, one by
the name of John de Judice,22 The whole body agreed to follow without
demur the one of these two whom the lots decided to be bishop. In this
way, Garattus was chosen bishop by lot, and forthwith all were there
brought to concord. They set a certain period of time for selecting as¬
sociates and gathering funds for the journey of Garattus to Bulgaria to
be consoled and receive episcopal consecration and, after his return, for
the group to be reconsoled in fulfillment of the verdict of the ultra¬
montane bishop.
But within the period agreed on, Garattus was accused on the testi¬
mony of two witnesses of being guilty of relations with a woman, for
which reason he was deemed unworthy of the episcopal office by a great
many of them, and therefore they did not hold themselves bound by the
pledge of obedience which they had made to him. Whence the group,
once divided in two, was now split up into six parts. For, within the
23. Cathars in Lombardy 163

period mentioned above, in which they had promised to provide as¬

sociates and expenses for this Garattus to go to Bulgaria, some from
Desenzano28 established a congregation and chose a man named John
the Good24 as their bishop and sent him across the sea to Drugunthia,
there to be ordained bishop. This is now the party of Amizo.25 Also, some
from Mantua, with their followers, chose as their bishop a man named
Caloiannes,26 who, being sent to Sclavonia27 after his consecration,
filled the episcopate for them. In the same fashion another man, named
Nicola,28 chosen by a congregation at Vicenza and sent to Sclavonia to
be consecrated, was received as their bishop on his return. Similarly in
Tuscany two bishops were ordained.29 And so Garattus, although all
were by their promise supposed to obey him, was abandoned by those
we have named. He forbade their usurpation of the leadership of the
group in this way but they rejected his order and did not give up their
undertaking.
After all these bishops had been consecrated, as has been recounted,
some of the Milanese, who did not concur in the decisions and actions
of the others, sought to have Garattus for bishop as they had promised.
But Garattus, well aware that he had been abandoned by the majority,
would not consent. He suggested that John Judeus, who, in humility and
to bring unity out of schism, had given up the episcopate, was more
worthy of this office. Since John Judeus was reluctant to accept it, this
group again sent delegates across the mountains to confer on the matter
with the bishop who had first given judgment. At the news of the
schism, the bishop greatly deplored what had been done and sent word
to John Judeus to go to Bulgaria to carry out what had been propounded
in the verdict, so that he might be prelate in Lombardy over all who were
willing to submit. This he did. After John’s death, another man, named
Joseph,30 took his place, and when Joseph died, Garattus succeeded him.
Now, Garattus and his followers argued that the aforesaid bishops with
their followers were bound by the former promise made to him, unless
he released them from it, and he declared that they had accepted epis¬
copal ordination against God’s will and against right reason. On this
account he refused to join in the ritual of bestowing the prayer or in the
performance of reverences31 with any of these bishops except Caloiannes,
whom he had recently absolved and with whom he had made peace. In
this fashion, as we have related, the whole body of Cathars—that is to
say, heretics and evildoers, adulterers of the teaching of Christ—once
164 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

living in unity was first split in two and then again into six parts.32
[2a] This Is the Belief of One Group of the Heretics.—Marchisius of
Sojano,88 bishop of those of Desenzano, and Amizo, his elder son,
prelates of one party of the Cathars, having their consecration in the
sect of Drugunthia, believe and preach that there are two gods or lords
without beginning and without end, one good, the other wholly evil. And
they say that each created angels: die good God good angels and the evil
one evil ones, and that the good God is almighty in the heavenly home,
the evil one rules in all this worldly structure.84 They say that Lucifer
is the son of the god of darkness, inasmuch as it is said in the Gospel of
John: “You are of your father the devil,” and following that, “For he is
a liar, and his father the devil,” 35 that is, Lucifer in their explanation is
the liar. They say that this Lucifer ascended from his kingdom here
into the heaven above, conformably to that written by the prophet Isaiah,
“I will ascend into heaven,” 36 and so on. There he transfigured himself
into an angel of light. Since the angels regarded him with admiration for
his appearance and interceded with the Lord on his behalf, he was
received [into heaven and there was appointed a steward of the angels];37
whence it is said in the Gospel of Luke, “There was a certain rich man
who had a steward.” 38 In the office of steward, he led the angels astray.
Then, they say, was waged a great battle in heaven, “and that dragon was
cast out, that old serpent,”89 together with the seduced angels, accord¬
ing to the text of the Apocalypse: “And his tail drew the third part of
the stars of heaven.”40 Those angels had a triple composition: body,
soul, and spirit. And they say that the slain bodies, which are called
“dry bones” in Ezechiel,41 remained in heaven; the spirits also remained
there. The souls, however, were seized by Lucifer and were put into
bodies in this world. They say that Christ, the Son of God, came to save
only these souls, according to the text: “The Son of man came not to
destroy souls, but to save”;42 and again, in the Gospel of Matthew, “I
was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel”;43
and again, further cm, “The Son of man is come to save that which was
lost.”44 And He led back the hundredth sheep which had strayed. Of
the afore-mentioned battle they repeat this psalm, “O God, the heathens
are come.” 45 They declare that there are still in heaven the garments,
the crowns, and the places which they lost, and that they ought to re¬
ceive them again, of which the Apostle [says], “As to the rest, there is
laid up for me a crown of justice which the Lord, the just judge, will
23. Cathars in Lombardy 165
render to me in that day.”48 They assert that judgment is already ren¬
dered because of the text, “The prince of this world is already judged.”47
They explain that human bodies are in part animated by those evil
spirits whom the devil created and in part by those souls48 that fell.
Those souls do penance in these bodies and, if not saved in one body,
a soul goes into another body and does penance. When penance is ac¬
complished, the bodies and spirits which remained in heaven shall be
recovered, according to that text from the Apostle: “And may the God
of peace himself sanctify you in all things, that your whole spirit and
soul and body, may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ.”49
[2b] This Is the Opinion or Belief of Another Group of Heretics.—
Caloiannes, bishop of a party of heretics consecrated in the sect of
Sclavonia, and Garattus, bishop of another group of the adulterers of
the teaching of Christ, which draws its consecration from the sect of
Bulgaria,50 believe in and preach one only good God, almighty, without
beginning, who created angels and the four elements. They assert that
Lucifer and his accomplices sinned in heaven, but some among them are
uncertain as to how their sin arose. Some, indeed, hold—but it is a
secret— that there was a certain evil spirit having four faces: one of a
man, the second of a bird, the third of a fish, and the fourth of a beast.
It had no beginning and remained in this chaos,51 having no power of
creation. They say that Lucifer, while yet he was good, came down and,
beholding the spectacle of this evil spirit, was filled with wonder, and
was led astray by the conversation and the prompting of this evil spirit.
He returned to heaven and there seduced others. They were cast out of
heaven but did not lose the natural attributes which they possessed.
These heretics assert that Lucifer and the other evil spirit wished to
separate the elements, but could not. Thereupon, they begged from God
a good angel as assistant, and thus with God”s acquiescence, with the
aid of this good angel, and by his strength and wisdom, they separated
the elements. And, they say, Lucifer is the God who, in Genesis, is said to
have created heaven and earth and to have accomplished this work in
six days. They explain that Lucifer fashioned the body of Adam from
the clay of the earth and into that body by force pressed the good angel,
in accord with the text in the Gospel: “Laying hold of him, he throttled
him, saying: Pay what thou owest.”52 And for him Lucifer made Eve,
in order to cause him to sin through her. And they say that eating of the
166 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

forbidden tree was fornication. According to some of them, just as flesh

comes from flesh, so spirit is born of spirit, following the verse of the
Gospel: “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is
born of the Spirit, is spirit 11
There is a certain controversy among
them on this point. Certain others of their number, rejecting this opinion,
say that all the spirits destined to be saved were created at one time and
were infused little by little into human bodies by the will of God. How¬
ever, those who say that spirit is born of spirit affirm that all this world
is peopled by those wicked spirits, including both those who are to be
damned and those who are to be saved. The ones, indeed, who say that
all the spirits destined for salvation were created simultaneously assert
that those spirits who fell were not destined for salvation at the time of
their embodiment, and so they pass from body to body. This will con¬
tinue, even to the end of the world; and at the world’s judgment the
good and the evil will be numbered. The good will resume their own
places; the evil will have everlasting punishment. On this point they are
somewhat at odds, for some of them agree that a part of those that fell
are to be saved: those who sinned not of their own accord but, as it were,
under compulsion. Those who sinned deliberately are to be damned.
They assert that other spirits have been created by Almighty God to
fill the places of those not destined for salvation.
The common belief of all Cathars is that all things recounted in
Genesis—namely, about the flood, the deliverance of Noah, God’s
speaking to Abraham, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah—were
done by the devil, who there is called god. And likewise this very god
led the people out of Egypt, and gave them the Law in the desert, and
led them into the Promised Land. And he sent prophets to them through
whose prophecies he caused the blood of animals to be offered unto
him, so that he might be honored as god. And if sometimes these proph¬
ets foretold something about Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, they
prophesied all unknowingly, as if forced thereto. They avow that Al¬
mighty God did all these things, not through himself, but through the
devil as His minister. In this way, they say, with reference to what the
devil performed by the wisdom and power accorded to him in creation
by God, he caused all these things, with the purpose of ruling over
them without limit, with God’s permission. God permitted it for another
purpose, that He might draw out of this world through penance the
fruit of those destined to be saved.
23. Cathars in Lombardy 167

The Sclavini believe that in the time of grace the Son of God (who is
Jesus Christ), John the Evangelist, and Mary three angels ap
pearing in the flesh. They say that Christ did not really put on flesh,
nor did He eat or drink, nor was He crucified, dead, or buried; that
everything He did as man was only semblance, not actuality, and but
seemed to be real.
Some of the heretics of Bulgaria believe that Mary was a true woman
and that the Son of God took on true human flesh from her, truly ate, and
was crucified in the flesh, but did not ascend in this flesh, for He put it
off at His ascension. Of John the Baptist, they say that he was sent by
the devil with the baptism of water to hinder the preaching of Christ.
When he pointed at Christ with his finger or preached anything about
Him, it was not of his own doing but that of the Holy Spirit, speaking
through him as through a tube, as though he were under compulsion,
not knowing what he said, just as Caiphas prophesied all unknowingly.54
Few, indeed, of the Cathars disagree with this opinion; even the Bulgars
believe it. All reject matrimony and deny the resurrection of these
visible bodies. All say that the baptism of water never brought salvation,
even the baptism which the apostles performed in water.
[3. These Are Their Prelates.] The bishop Garattus, ordained in
Bulgaria, resides at Concorezzo;55 his elder son is Nazarius 56 and his
younger son, Gerald of Brescia.57 Caloiannes is bishop of Mantua; he
has his ordination from Sclavonia. His elder son was Orto of Bagnolo,58
but he is now a bishop; his younger son was Aldricus de Gilinguellis,
from Milan. Marchisius of Sojano is a bishop of the Drugunthian sect;
his elder son is Amizo. Nicola of Vicenza is a bishop of the Sclavonian
sect; his elder son is Peter Gallus,59 his younger son is named Prandus.

24. The Origins of the Cathars in Italy

About a century after the appearance of the Cathars in Lombardy a Domin¬
ican inquisitor wrote an account of their origins. Although several of the
same individuals and some of the events described in Number 23 appear,
the narrative is different enough in detail to show its independence of that
earlier work. It formed part of various notes jotted down by an inquisitor
in a collection of materials useful to his office: descriptions of the beliefs
and practices of Cathars and Waldenses, remarks on the schism within
each group and on the consolamentum and other Catharist practices, for¬
mularies of procedure, and a list of the heretical hierarchy of his day. Here
168 ,
Heresy in Italy 1160-1216

we translate only the first item, on the history of the Cathars, although
several other excerpts will appear in a later place (No. 54).
The author of this treatise on heresy is designated only by the initial A.
in the one known manuscript, but his obvious role as an inquisitor made
fuller identification possible. He was Anselm of Alessandria, who was active
in the business of the Holy Office as early as 1256 in Genoa and was named
inquisitor for the province of Milan and the March of Genoa in January
of 1267. His name appears in other documents as late as 1279, after which
nothing more is known of him. From internal evidence, the first elements
of the treatise can be dated between 1260 and 1270, perhaps, to be more
precise, in 1266-1267; others notes were added over about a decade.1 All that
is known of the author is discussed by Dondaine in connection with the
edition from which we made the translation.2
The following is translated from Antoine Dondaine, “La Hierarchie ca-
thare en Italie, II: Le ‘Tractatus de hereticis’ d’Anselme d’Alexandrie, O.P.;
III: Catalogue de la hierarchie cathare d’ltalie,” Archivum fratrum praedi-
catorum, XX (1950), 308-10, by permission of Father Dondaine and the
Istituto storico domenicano di S. Sabina.

1150-1200 (written circa 1266-1267)

[1] The Foundation and Earliest Beginning of Heresies.—It should
be remarked that there was in Persia an individual named Mani,3 who
first began to ask himself: If there is a god, whence do evils arise? And
if there is no god, whence comes good? As a result, he postulated two
principles. He taught in the regions of Drugunthia, Bulgaria, and Phila¬
delphia,4 and heresy increased there so much that men set up three
bishops, one of Drugunthia, another of Bulgaria, and another of Phila¬
delphia. Presently, Greeks from Constantinople, who are neighbors to
Bulgaria at a distance of about three days’ travel, went as merchants to
the latter country; and, on return to their homeland, as their numbers
grew, they set up there a bishop who is called bishop of the Greeks.
Then Frenchmen went to Constantinople, intending to conquer the land,5
and discovered this sect; increasing in number, they established a bishop
who is called bishop of the Latins. Thereafter, certain persons from
Sclavonia, that is, from the area called Bosnia, went as merchants to
Constantinople. On return to their own land, they preached and, having
increased in number, established a bishop who is called the bishop of
Sclavonia or of Bosnia. Later on, the French who had gone to Con¬
stantinople returned to their homeland and preached and, as their
numbers grew, set up a bishop of France. Because the French were
originally led astray in Constantinople by Bulgars, throughout France
24. Origins of the Italian Cathars 169

these persons are called Bulgarian heretics. Also, people of Provence who
are neighbors of those of France, hearing the teaching of the French and
led astray by them, grew so numerous that they set up four bishops,
namely, bishops of Carcassonne, of Albi, of Toulouse, and of Agen.
After a considerable period of time, there came a certain notary from
France to Lombardy, in fact, to Milanese territory in the vicinity of
Concorezzo. He fell in with a man named Mark, a native of a place
called Cologno,6 and led him astray. This man Mark talked to two of
his friends, namely, John Judeus and Joseph. Note that Mark was a
gravedigger; John, a weaver; and Joseph, a smith. One of these men
made his way to Milan, to the Porta Orientale or Porta Conrencia7 and
there found a friend of his named Aldricus of Bando,8 and led him
astray. All these deluded persons took counsel with the aforesaid notary,
who sent them to Roccavione9—that is a place near Cuneo—where
dwelt Cathars who had come from France to settle. The bishop of the
heretics was not there, being at Naples. Thither they went and sought
him out, staying in that city for a year.10 Thereafter, having received the
imposition of the hand, Mark was made a deacon. The aforesaid bishop
sent him back to his native place near Concorezzo, where Mark himself
began to preach. As a result of his preaching in Lombardy, then in the
March of Treviso, and later in Tuscany, the number of heretics greatly
increased.
Somewhat later there arrived a certain individual named Papa Nicheta,
who was bishop of the heretics in Constantinople. He said, “There are
so many of you that you ought to have a bishop.” Accordingly, they
chose the aforesaid Mark as bishop, and all the aforesaid Lombard,
Tuscan, and Trevisan heretics acknowledged his authority. Papa Nicheta
himself confirmed him. After some time, Mark heard a report that Papa
Nicheta had brought his life to a bad end. Consequently, Mark proposed
to travel across the sea to obtain episcopal ordination from the bishop of
Bulgaria. When he reached Calabria, he encountered a certain Cathar
deacon named Hillary,11 who told him that the voyage across the sea
was impossible, so he turned back. He had reached the territory called
Argentea 12 when he was captured and thrust into prison. Afflicted by
mortal illness, he sent word to Lombardy to John Judeus and the other
Cathars to elect a bishop, because he was gravely ill. All the Cathars of
Lombardy together chose John Judeus of Concorezzo. John Judeus
went to Argentea and had himself confirmed as bishop by the aforesaid
170 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

Mark, then he returned to Lombardy. A few days later Mark was re¬
leased from confinement but, on arriving in Lombardy, died before
reaching John Judeus. All the Cathars in Lombardy, John Judeus as
well as the others, had been thrown into doubt because Papa Nicheta
had come to an evil end, for from him derived the office of Bishop Mark
who had confirmed the aforesaid John. A certain Nicholas of the March
of Treviso, who himself wished to be bishop, realized this. He sought to
stir up a controversy by saying to the Cathars: “What do you think about
Lord Mark? Do you think he came to a good end or not?” All would
reply, “Yes, we think he came to a good end.” The man would then re¬
join, “John Judeus says that Lord Mark came to an evil end, and for
that reason he wants to cross the sea to be reconsoled.” Thus, a fivefold
division appeared among the heretics, corresponding to the five localities
they inhabited. Those of Concorezzo kept John Judeus as bishop. Those
of Desenzano, which is located in the diocese of Brescia, chose a man
named Philip 13 as bishop. He became involved a little later with two
Cathar women and so, abandoning the Cathars, returned to secular life
with both women. Philip is reported to have been of the opinion that
no man or woman can commit sin from the waist down; in this he had
many followers.14 The people of Mantua chose an individual named
Caloiannes and when he died, a short time after his election, they chose
Orto of Bagnolo,15 from which fact they are called Bagnolenses. Those
of the March of Treviso chose the aforesaid Nicholas, who had sowed
the dissension among them. The Florentines elected one Peter of
Florence, who was bishop there and throughout Tuscany.16

25. Bonacursus: A Description of the Catharist Heresy

A statement (manifestatio) exposing the teaching of Italian Cathars was,
perhaps, one result of the efforts of St. Galdinus against heresy in Milan
(see No. 20). At some time between 1176 and 1190, Bonacursus, a convert
from the Cathars, revealed the doctrines of their heresy in a confession made
in Milan. His statement became the nucleus from which a tract against
heresy grew. To his confession other materials were soon added, probably
by other hands: lists of biblical citations thought pertinent for use in refuta¬
tion of various dualist tenets; a brief statement of the beliefs of another sect,
the Passagians (see No, 26), with appropriate texts for their rebuttal; and an
argument against the heresy of the Arnoldists.1 These accumulated materials
25. Bonacursus 171
constitute the tract in the form published by Migne; other versions of its
component parts also exist. We translate only Bonacursus’s confession of
the beliefs of the Cathars.
The treatise is studied by llarino da Milano in “La ‘Manifestatio heresis
catarorum,’ ” Aevum XII (1938), 281-333.2 The portion revealing the tenets
of the Cathars is the particular subject of investigation by Raoul Manselli,
“Per la storia dell’eresia,” Bullettino delVlstituto storico italiano per il medio
evo e Archivio Muratoriano, LXVII (1955), 189-211. Manselli studied and
printed from a manuscript of the Bibliotheque nationale (lat. 14927) a ver¬
sion of the confession somewhat different from that found in Migne. He
believed the Paris text to represent the original confession, which was later
reworked for polemical purposes into the version we translate. We have
noted the most important variants between the two.
The following piece is translated from Migne, Patrologia latina, CCIV,
175-11, where it is given the title Vita haereticorum. The treatise is more
commonly referred to as Manifestatio haeresis catharorum quam fecit
Bonacursus.

1176-1190

A n Exposure of the Heresy of the Cathars, Made before the People

of Milan by Bonacursus, Who Formerly Was One of Their Masters

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who always and everywhere protects and
guides His Church and confirms and preserves the Catholic faith, de¬
siring in His holy mercy to make public and expose the error of those who
are called Cathars, compassionately illumined a certain teacher8 among
them, Bonacursus by name, by the grace of His Holy Spirit and restored
him by grace to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, for which we give
boundless praise to God and all the saints. Their heresy is, indeed, not
only terrifying but is, truly, too frightful and execrable to speak of or
hear about.4 For some of them say that God created all the elements,
others say that the devil created these elements; but their common
opinion is that the devil divided the elements. They state also that the
same devil made Adam from dust of the earth and with very great force
imprisoned in him a certain angel of light, of whom they think it was
said in the Gospel, “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to
Jericho,”5 and so on. They say that the devil made Eve, with whom
he lay, and from this union Cain was born. On discovering this, Adam
came to know Eve and she bore Abel, whom Cain killed; and of the
latter’s blood, they declare dogs are born, and are, for that reason,
172 ,
Heresy in Italy 1160-1216

so faithful to men.6 The union of Adam and Eve was, in their words, the
forbidden fruit. They put forward another error, which is that all things
that have been made—in the air, in the sea, and on the earth, such as
men and animate and inanimate things—were made by the devil.7
From the daughters of Eve and demons were born giants,8 who learned
from the demons, their fathers, that the devil had created all things.
Hence, the devil, sorrowing at their knowledge thereof, said, “It re-
penteth me that I have made man”;9 and Noah, because he had not that
knowledge, was delivered from the flood and was told by the devil, as
they say, to “Go into the ark.” 10 They say that Enoch was translated 11
by the same devil.
Again, they assert that whatever things were done or said by Abra¬
ham, Isaac, or Jacob were said and done by a demon. They also aver
that it was the devil who appeared to Moses in the bush and spoke to
him. Moreover, the miracles performed by Moses in Pharaoh’s presence,
the fact that the children of Israel passed through the Red Sea and
were led into the Promised Land, God’s speaking to Moses,12 and the
Law which God gave to him—all these, they say and believe were
the work of this same devil, their master. In regard to the utterances of
the holy prophets, they affirm that some of the prophecies were disclosed
by the Spirit of God, others by a wicked spirit; hence the Apostle: “Prove
all things; hold fast that which is good.” 18 They condemn David for
adultery and murder; they say Elijah was carried off in a chariot by
the devil.14 They assert that the angel sent to Zacharias by God was
an angel of the devil. They also condemn John [the Baptist] himself,
than whom none is greater, according to the word of the Lord. Why?
Because the Lord says in the Gospel, “He that is the lesser in the kingdom
of God is greater than he,” 15 and because he [John] doubted Christ by
saying: “Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another?” 16
Mary, the mother of our Lord, they believe to have been born of woman
alone, not of man.17 Of Christ, they declare that He did not have a
living body,18 that He did not eat, drink, or do anything else as men do,
but that it only seemed that he did. They say that the thief on the left
hand is in hell.19 They do not believe that the body of Christ rose again
or was taken into heaven, nor in the resurrection of the flesh, nor that
Christ descended into hell. They do not think the Son equal to the
Father, for He said, “The Father is greater than I.” 20 They say that the
Cross is the sign of the beast of which one reads in the Apocalypse and
25. Bonacursus 173
is an abomination in a holy place.21 They assert that the Blessed Syl¬
vester 22 was the Antichrist of whom one reads in the Epistle: “The son
of perdition,” is he “who is lifted up above all that is called God.”23
From that day, they say, the Church was lost. They believe that in
matrimony no one can attain salvation.
They condemn all the doctors—that is, they damn Ambrose, Gregory,
Augustine, Jerome and the others all together. If anyone shall have eaten
meat, eggs, or cheese, or anything of an animal nature, [they believe]
he consumed damnation for himself. They think that the Holy Spirit can
in no way be received in the baptism of water,24 nor do they believe that
any visible substance can by any means be changed into the body of
Christ. They believe, also, that anyone who takes an oath will be damned,
and they think that no one can be saved except by a certain imposition
of hands which they call baptism and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.
They hold that the devil himself is the sun, Eve the moon; and each
month, they say, they commit adultery, like a man with some harlot.23
All the stars they believe to be demons. Finally, they say that no one can
attain salvation outside of their sect. Lo, such is the heresy of the
Cathars, from which God keep all Catholics. Amen.26

26. The Heresy of the Passagians

The Passagians,1 a minor sect of the late twelfth century, were distinguished
particularly by their insistence on observing strictly the legal precepts of the
Old Testament, including the practice of circumcision,2 although in common
with various other heretics they also rejected orthodox views on the divinity
of Christ and on the Trinity and spurned some of the sacraments and other
institutions of the Church.3 There is no mention in the sources of a distinc¬
tive church organization or hierarchy among them. The earliest reference
to the sect occurs in a papal condemnation of 1184; the name appears there¬
after, as late as 1291, in the stereotyped lists of sects which were under
official condemnation, but this in itself is not reliable evidence of actual
survival.4 Polemics written after the middle of the thirteenth century do not
discuss them, nor is the sect referred to in the inquisitorial literature. It has
been suggested that the Passagians were found only in Lombardy.6
The most important source for the doctrines of the Passagians is the
summa of unknown authorship and date from which excerpts are here
translated.6 It has been ascribed on inconclusive evidence to Prevostin of
Cremona, chancellor at Paris from 1206 to 1210, who is said to have
preached against and converted heretics.7 The date of writing is presumed
to fall between 1184 and 1210, most probably at the very end of the twelfth
174 ,
Heresy in Italy 1160-1216

century.8 The tract, in ten known manuscripts,0 is devoted primarily to

refutation of the doctrines of the Cathars and the Passagians, greater space
being given to the latter; but certain unnamed heretics are spoken of briefly
in the concluding chapters.10
Because this is the first example of the systematic scholastic polemic11
presented in these translations, a word about its organization and style may
be pertinent. The author’s usual practice is to state in successive chapters
the tenets of the heretics and the arguments, primarily based on scriptural
texts, which they advance to uphold them. Normally, each of these quota¬
tions is at once reinterpreted by the author to prove the weakness of the
heretical position.12 Within each chapter, also, a separate portion expounds
the Catholic view on the point in question, with its own scriptural or rational
support. In this fashion, the first four chapters deal with the Cathars; the
remainder are devoted primarily to the Passagians, but in several cases
where their tenets parallel Catharist beliefs, separate portions of a chapter
are given to each sect and, as we have said, certain other heretics are
brought briefly into the discussion.
We have selected for translation those portions of six chapters which
present the Passagians’ statements about the nature of Christ, the need to
observe the Old Testament and Mosaic Law, circumcision, the Sabbath, the
prohibition of certain foods, and the invalidity of the institutions and prac¬
tices of the Roman Church, but we have omitted all of the Catholic re¬
sponses. The complex editorial problem of establishing a text from manu¬
scripts often widely at variance led Garvin and Corbett, the editors, to print
considerable portions of their edition in parallel columns.13 Of these, we
have chosen to follow the recension which incorporates the version of the
treatise found in Vatican Latin manuscript 4304, which is one of the earliest
in date and, in the opinion of George Lacombe, has the better textual
tradition.
A meticulous description of the manuscripts and a summary of the con¬
tents of the summa are given in the Introduction to the edition of Garvin
and Corbett. Discussions of the author and of the heresy by Lacombe and
Molinier have already been cited; to them may be added a chapter which
associates the Passagians with other “Judaizing” religious movements in
Italy, in Louis I. Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Move¬
ments, pp. 240-302; an article by Paul Alphandery, “Sur les Passagiens,”
Revue des etudes juives, LXXXII (1926), 353-61; and most recently, Raoul
Manselli’s “I Passagini,” Bullettino delVlstituto storico italiano per il medio
evo e Archivio Muratoriano, LXXV (1963), 189-210, which interprets the
Passagians as a short-lived Christian heresy motivated by aspirations to
purity and sanctity of life.
The following translation is made from The Summa contra haereticos
Ascribed to Praepositinus of Cremona, ed. by Joseph N. Garvin and James
A. Corbett (Publications in Mediaeval Studies, XV [Notre Dame, 1958]),
pp. 75-164, by permission of the editors and the Publications in Mediaeval
 .
26 The Heresy of the Passagians 175
Studies of the University of Notre Dame. Those chapter numbers and titles
which were supplied by Garvin and Corbett are in brackets.

circa 1200

A SUMMA AGAINST HERETICS

[Chapter V: On the Passagians, Who Say That Christ Is a Created

Being]
Having discussed the sect of the Cathars, we have now to consider the
sect of the Passagians. They say that Christ is the first and a pure
created being and that the Old Testament is to be observed in the matter
of feasts, circumcision, choice of foods, and in almost all other respects,
with the exception of sacrifices.
They attempt the proof of the first point, that Christ is a pure created
being, in this way:
1. Isaiah, representing the Father as speaking of Christ, says, “I am
the Lord that make all things, that raise up the word of my servant and
perform the counsel of my messengers.” 15 Note that here Christ is
called a servant. He, who in Isaiah’s time had but one nature, was with
regard to it spoken of as a servant. Therefore, in that respect He was
less than the Father, and thus His existence had a beginning. By that
fact, He was a created being. . . .
2. Also, Isaiah, representing the Father as speaking of Christ, “Be¬
hold my servant, I will uphold him, my elect whom I have chosen.” 18...
3. Also, in the same book: “Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above
and let the clouds rain the just; let the earth be opened and bud forth a
savior. I the Lord have created him.” 17...
4. Also, Solomon, in Proverbs, speaking in the character of Wisdom,
says: “The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways”; and in an¬
other version, “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways,” or
following another reading, “the beginning of his works.”18
5. Also, in Ecclesiasticus, “Wisdom hath been created before all
things.” 19 The words refer to the Son of God; therefore He is a created
being. Also, in the same book, “From the beginning and before the
world was I created.” 20...
6. Also, we find in the Gospel of Matthew: “When evening was come,
the lord of the vineyard called his steward” 21—meaning that the Father
called the Son. And so we learn that the Son is a steward for the Father.
176 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

From this the heretic concludes: Therefore He is not of the same sub¬
stance as the Father nor of the same rank....
7. Also, in the Gospel of Matthew, “All power is given to me in
heaven and in earth.” 22 Therefore, this power was bestowed, not in¬
nate. ...
8. Also, in Mark, “But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither
the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.”28...
9. Also, in the Gospel of John, “If you did believe in Moses, you
would perhaps believe me also.” 24 Lo, He uses words of uncertainty;
hence, He was in doubt and so He did not know all things....
10. Also, in the Gospel of Matthew, “Father, let this chalice pass from
me.” 25 Christ here was making a request for something; therefore for
something which He either did or did not desire. If it was for some¬
thing that He did not want, why did He ask? If it was something that
He wished for, then it was something He either could or could not bring
about. If it was something that He could not bring about, then He was
omnipotent; if
did He seek it of someone else?...
11. Also, in the Gospel of John, the Jews said to Jesus: “‘For a
good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou,
being a man, makest thyself God.’ Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in
your law, / said you are godsT If he called them gods to whom the word
of God was spoken, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of
Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, ‘He has
blasphemed, because he said, 7 am the son of God*?”2* Note that
here He seems to reveal in what sense He might call himself God, citing
the text of the Psalmist, “I have said, ‘You are gods,’ ”27 wherein they
are called gods only by adoption. Hence, He was God by adoption, not
by nature....
12. Also, in die same Gospel, “And the glory which Thou hast given
me I have given to them, that they themselves may be one even as we
also are one.”28 Note that here is to be seen the significance of His
earlier statement, “I and the Father are one”;29 one, namely, by love
and not by essence, for He says of the apostles, “that they themselves
may be one,” and so on....
13. Also, in the same Gospel, the Son says, “The Father is greater
than I.”80 So, therefore, the Son is less than the Father; therefore, the
Son is not equal to Him....
26. The Heresy of the Passagians 111
14. Also, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, “And when all things
shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also himself shall be subject
unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”31
Note that here it is said that the Son shall be subject to the Father; so,
therefore, He is lesser than the Father_
15. Also, in Isaiah, “I the Lord, this is my name; I will not give my
glory to another.”32 But His glory is that He himself is omnipotent Ood>
Therefore, He will not give it to another, hence, not to the Son. There¬
fore, the Son is not God omnipotent....
16. Also, in Ecclesiasticus, it is said of Christ, “He that could have
transgressed and hath not transgressed,”33 and so on. Therefore, He
could commit mortal sin; hence, He could be damned. Therefore, He is
not omnipotent God....
17. Also, in the Apocalypse, John says: “To the seven churches which
are in Asia: Grace be unto you and peace from Him that is and that
was and that is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his
throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first be¬
gotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth.”34 Note that
in that salutation first is set down, “From Him that is and that was and
that is to come,” and then follows, “And from the seven spirits which are
before his throne,” and at the end it has, “And from Jesus Christ,” and
so on. From that it appears that Jesus Christ is below and of lesser rank
than the seven spirits, for which reason He is not omnipotent God_
18. Also, the Son is from the Father, therefore He comes after the
Father. An example: Heat is from fire; therefore it follows after fire.
Also, the Son is God, the Father is God; the Son is not the Father nor
is the reverse true. Therefore, there are several gods....

[Chapter VI: That the Old Testament Is To Be Observed to the

Letter]
To the foregoing the heretics also add that the Old Testament is to be
observed to the letter. First they propose to us certain things in respect
of the Law, deriving therefrom some particular points dealing with cir¬
cumcision, the Sabbath, and the choice of foods, also various other
matters which we will discuss in the proper place.
They attempt to prove that the Old Testament is to be observed:
la. By the authority of the Lord speaking in Matthew, “Do not think
that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets. I am not come to
178 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

destroy but to fulfill.” 85 Note that He who was Lord of the Law does
not destroy the Law but fulfills it. For this reason we ought to observe
the Law.
lb. Also, in the same Gospel, “For amen, I say unto you, till heaven
and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall not pass of the Law, till all be
fulfilled.”36 “Jot” means the least of the commandments, “tittle” means
the least part of the least commandment. For this reason, it seems that
the least commandment and the least part of a commandment are to be
observed “till heaven and earth pass.” Therefore, all the precepts of the
Law are to be kept until the Day of Judgment....
2. Also, in the same Gospel of Matthew, “He therefore that shall
break one of these least commandments and shall so teach men shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” 87 So, therefore, the least
precepts of the Law are to be observed; much more, therefore, the
greater. And thereafter, “But he that shall do and teach, he shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.” 88 So, therefore, the least precepts
of the Law are to be observed....
3. Also, in the same Gospel, “Unless your justice abound more than
that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven.” 39 But the justice of the scribes and Pharisees was in keeping
the Law. Therefore, “Unless your justice abound more,”—meaning, in
the acceptance of the Gospel—“you shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven.” By this it appears that each Testament is to be observed....
4. Also, in the same Gospel, the Lord says to the leper whom He
had cleansed, “Go, show thyself to the priests and offer the gift which
Moses commanded in the Law for a testimony unto them.” 40 Note how
the Lord ordered that the sacred usages be observed. Much more, there¬
fore, are we bound to keep the major parts of the Law. Therefore, all
things that the Law includes are to be observed....
5. Also, in the same Gospel: “The scribes and the Pharisees have
sitten on the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall
say to you do,” but those things which they do, “do ye not.” 41 But they
spoke of nothing but that which was included in the Law, word for word.
Therefore, all things comprised in the Law are to be observed to the
letter....
6. Also, in the same Gospel, “All things, therefore, whatsoever that
you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For these
are the Law and the prophets.”42 But whatsoever things are included in
 .
26 The Heresy of the Passagians 179
this commandment are to be kept and nothing rejected.43 For this reason,
whatsoever things are included in the Law and the prophets are to be ob¬
served. ...
7. Also, in the same Gospel, a certain man skilled in law came to the
Lord Jesus and said to Him, “Master, which is the great commandment
of the Law?” And He answered: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
thy whole heart and with thy whole mind and with thy whole soul. This is
the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like unto this:
and thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth
the whole Law and the prophets.” 44 Therefore, all things that are con¬
tained in the Law and the prophets are bound up with the love of God
and of one’s neighbor. But nothing that is bound up with the love of
God and one’s neighbor is to be rejected. For this reason all things that
are included in the Law are to be observed.. ..
8. Also, the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans: “Do we destroy
the Law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the Law.” 45 Note
that the Apostle says that the Law is not destroyed through faith, that is,
through the Gospel; therefore, it is to be kept. Furthermore, he says,
“But we establish the Law.” If the Apostle establishes it, it is to be ob¬
served. . ..
9. Also, in the same Epistle: “The Law indeed is holy, and the com¬
mandment holy and just and good”;46 and thereafter, “The Law is
spiritual.” 47 Here is a statement that the Law is holy and spiritual. For
that reason, it is to be observed. . . .
10. Also James, “And whosoever shall keep the whole Law but
offend in one point is become guilty of all.”48 Note here the statement
that if anyone shall observe the whole Law and offend in one point, he
becomes guilty of all. Therefore, nothing of the Law is to be rejected.
For this reason, all things which are included in the Law are to be
kept....

[Chapter VII: Circumcision Is To Be Accepted Literally]

Having considered and discussed the Law in general, we must now
examine some particular points relating to matters of the Law; first,
circumcision, which they seek to uphold in this way.
1. In Genesis the Lord says to Abraham: “I am, and my covenant is
with thee. Thou shalt keep my covenant and thy seed after thee in their
generations. This is my covenant which you shall observe. All the male
180 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

kind of you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of
your foreskin. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual
covenant. The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised,
that soul shall be destroyed out of his people because he hath broken my
covenant.” 49 From these words the heretic concludes that actual cir¬
cumcision is needful for salvation, and is to be observed forever....
2. Also, Ezechiel says, “No stranger uncircumcised in heart and
uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary, saith the Lord.” 50
And thus it appears manifest that each of these circumcisions is to be
observed....
3. Also, circumcision was given before the Law was given, that is,
to Abraham, and was observed and confirmed in the time of the Law,
and in the time of Christ was confirmed and accepted by Christ. There¬
fore, if it was kept and fulfilled by Christ and if in His time He did not
annul it, then it is still to be observed. ...
4. Also, the Lord says in the Gospel of John, “If a man receive
circumcision on the Sabbath day that the law of Moses may not be
broken, are you angry at me because I have healed the whole man on
the Sabbath day?” 51 So, therefore, it seems that at that time circumcision
itself purified and healed a man in part. Therefore, it must have done so
for either the soul or the body; not the body, therefore the soul.52 There¬
fore, it cleansed the soul either from personal sin or from original sin;
but not personal sin, since a child is not guilty of personal sin, therefore
from original sin. Now, it had this very effect before the advent of
Christ, therefore, since circumcision was not annulled by Christ, it is
still to be accepted....
5. Also, the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Romans, “Circum¬
cision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the Law.” 53 Therefore, the Law is
to be kept....
6. Also, they may argue against us: The Apostle says in the Epistle
to the Galatians, “When they had seen that to me was committed the
gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.” 84
Note that he says the gospel of the circumcision was committed to Peter.
Therefore, Peter preached the circumcision. For that reason circumcision
is to be accepted....
7. Also, they argue against us thus: The Apostle says in the Epistle
to the Romans that it was said, “that Christ Jesus was minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the
26, The Heresy of the Pasbagians 181
Father.”55 Note that here he says that Christ was minister of the circum¬
cision and accepted it. For that reason, we also ought to accept it....

[Chapter VIII: The Sabbath Is To Be Kept to the Letter]

To the foregoing, the aforesaid heretics add the keeping of the Sab¬
bath, which they attempt to support in this way.
1. In Genesis it is said, “And God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it, because in it he had rested from all his work which he
created and made.” 56 Of this text, a commentator57 says: “ ‘And sancti¬
fied it’—meaning that He wished it to be holy and solemn. For it is
believed that prior to the Law the Sabbath was ever observed by certain
peoples, whose observance the Lord calls sanctified, saying, ‘Remember
that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. Thou shalt do no work on it.’ ” 58
2. And in a subsequent place, “You shall kindle no fire in any of
your habitations on the Sabbath day.” 59
3. And elsewhere: “Everyone that shall do any work on this day
shall die. Let the children of Israel, therefore, keep the Sabbath and
celebrate it in their generations, for it is an everlasting covenant between
me and the children of Israel and a perpetual sign.” 60
5. And in Deuteronomy: “Six days shalt thou labor and shalt do all
thy works. The seventh is the day of the Sabbath, that is, the rest of the
Lord. Thou shalt not do any work therein, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy ox, nor thy
ass, nor any of thy beasts, nor the stranger that is with thee, that thy
manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself.”61
6. Also, Jeremiah: “Carry no burdens on the Sabbath day and bring
them not in by the gates of Jerusalem. And do not bring burdens out of
your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any work.”62 From all
these words they conclude that the Sabbath was observed before the
Law, was commanded in the Law, and is to be kept forever after the
Law....

[Chapter X: On Observances in Respect of Foods]

We come at this point to observances in respect of foods, on which they
oppose us in this way.
1. The Lord in Genesis says to Noah and his sons, “Even as the
green herbs have I delivered all living things to you, saving that flesh
with blood you shall not eat” 63 (meaning an animal which has been
 182 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216

strangled). For this reason, it is not permissible to eat blood or strangled

flesh. Also, in Leviticus, “You shall not eat the blood of any flesh at
all.” 64 Likewise, in the Acts of the Apostles, the apostles wrote to con¬
verted Gentiles, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no
further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain
from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, things strangled, and fornica¬
tion.” 65
2. Also, in Leviticus, “If anyone sin,” 66 and so on. Of this verse a
commentator67 says: “It reads ‘anyone,’ not adding, ‘of the people of the
earth.’ For it refers to sins from which it is also needful for Gentiles to
avoid, that is, offerings to idols, strangled flesh, and fornication.”
3. Also, in the same book, “When there had been an ulcer in the
flesh and the skin, and it has been healed, and in the place of the ulcer
there appeareth a white scar, or somewhat red.” 68 Of this verse a com¬
mentator says: “ ‘In flesh and skin’ (meaning in man or in the soul)
‘when there has been an ulcer’ (meaning sin) ‘and it has been healed’
(meaning through repentance) ‘and in the place of the ulcer’ (meaning
by act or counsel) ‘a white scar’ (meaning sinful pursuits) ‘appeareth’
(meaning plainly in violation of the Law) ‘or somewhat red’ (meaning
corrupting the Gospel, as by eating blood sacrificed to idols or suffocated
flesh, for each is a denial of Christ, from whom come the Law and the
Gospel).” Note that from these two Testaments, the Old and the New,
it is obviously to be concluded that one may eat neither of what is
sacrificed to idols nor of strangled blood.

[Chapter XI; On Ecclesiastical Institutions]

Now we come to ecclesiastical institutions which the heretics seek to
annul entirely, calling them superfluous. They argue against them as a
whole in this way.
1. In Exodus it is said: “And this shall everyone give that passeth at
the numbering, half a side according to the standard of the temple. The
rich man shall not add to half a side and the poor man shall diminish
nothing.”69 Of this passage a commentator says: “ ‘And this shall every¬
one give that passeth at the numbering’ (which is recorded in heaven,
meaning everyone who is to be saved) ‘half a side’ (which is ten oboli,
namely, observance of the decalogue together with the faith of Christ)
t

‘according to the standard of the temple’ (meaning not at his own

pleasure but pursuant to what is determined in the Law or by a priest).
 .
26 The Heresy of the Passagians 183

‘The rich man shall not add to a half’ (meaning that one who is perfect
is not required to add ‘to half a side’).” Therefore, he is not bound to
observe anything but the decalogue and the faith of Christ; that is, those
things which are prescribed in the Law and the Gospel. For this reason,
we are not bound to observe ecclesiastical regulations, which are human
institutions. ...
2. Also, it is said in Leviticus, “And Nadab, moreover, and Abihu, the
sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it,
offering before the Lord strange fire which was not commanded them.
And fire coming out from the Lord destroyed them and they died.” 70
Of this passage, a commentator remarks: “They offer a ‘strange fire’ who,
spurning the traditions of God, yearn for strange doctrines and intro¬
duce the rule of a human institution.” But ecclesiastical institutions are
rules of human institution. For this reason, they should be destroyed
and, like Nadab and Abihu, deserve to perish, because they introduce “a
strange fire.”
3. Also, in Leviticus, “Do not any unjust thing in judgment, in rule,
in weight, and in measure. Let the balance be just for you and the
weights equal.” 71 Of this passage, a commentator says: “ ‘Just balance’—
let us keep the law of Holy Scripture sacred and just, adding thereto
nothing of our own nor taking away anything from it.” But every ec¬
clesiastical institution is something “of our own” and should not, there¬
fore, be put forward for observance.
4. Also, in Deuteronomy, “You shall not add to the word that I
speak, neither shall you take away from it.” 72...
5. Also, in the same book, “What I command thee, that only do
thou; neither add anything or diminish.” 73 We are, therefore, bound to
do nothing but what the Lord commanded. But man, not God, decreed
ecclesiastical institutions, and for that reason no one is bound to their
observance.
6. Also, in Isaiah, “And in vain do they worship me, teaching pre¬
cepts and doctrines of men.” 74 But ecclesiastical institutions are doctrines
and precepts of men. Therefore, they who teach and learn them worship
God in vain; such are not, then, to be taught or learned, and thus are
not to be observed....
7. Also, in the same book, “Get thee up upon a high mountain, thou
that bringest good tidings to Zion,”75 Of this passage a commentator
remarks: “ ‘Upon a high mountain,’ and so on, means Christ, so that
184 ,
Heresy in Italy 1160-1216

you may proclaim nothing but what you have from Him.” But not every
ecclesiastical institution is from Christ. For that reason, not every one is
to be proclaimed or observed. Or: If every one of them is from Christ,
every one is to be observed.
8. Also, in Osee, “The princes of Judah are become as they that
take up the bound 95
, in another version, “move the bound” “I will
pour out my wrath upon them like water.” 76 On this passage, a com¬
44
mentator remarks, ‘Taking up’ or ‘moving the bound’ are those who
preach other things than that which they received from the apostles....
9. Also, in Jonas, “They that are vain observe vanities, forsake their
own mercy.” 77 Of this passage, a commentator says: “The Jews, while
observing the traditions of men, forsook the commandments of God
who was always merciful unto them.” By the same token, men of our
day, while observing the institutions of the Church, which are traditions
of men, put aside the commandments of God....
44
10. Also, in the one hundred-and-third psalm, Over them the
birds,” 78 and so on. Augustine comments on this passage:79
44 4
Over
them,’ that is, those things which have been spoken, namely, the springs
in the vales—or, to use the other words, ‘over them,’ the hills80—‘the
birds of the air’ (meaning spiritual men) ‘shall dwell’; not in their own
hearts but ‘in the hills,’ that is, in the authority of the prophets and
apostles. And lest you suppose that the birds [spiritual men] follow their
own authority, he adds ‘that from the midst of the rocks shall they give
forth their voices,’81 which means, not by their own authority but by
that of the Lord’s words, with which Christ makes the rocks resound.”
Therefore, prelates of the churches should never proclaim anything but
the words of the Lord or that which can be derived from the words of
the Lord. Therefore, since the ecclesiastical institutions in greater part
are neither the words of the Lord nor can they be proved by nor derived
from them, it obvious that they are useless and superfluous....
11. Also, in Proverbs, “Every word of God is fire tried; he is a
buckler to them that hope in him. Add not anything to his words lest
thou be reproved and found a liar.” 82...
12. Also, in Matthew, “I am not come to destroy the Law but to
fulfill.” 83 Note that Christ came. He completed the Law adequately in
deed and word, adding what was lacking in the Law. Therefore, no
further things were to be added and, in light of this, it appears that all
additional ecclesiastical institutions are unnecessary....
13. Also, in the Epistle to the Romans, “For I dare not to speak of
26. The Heresy of the Passagians 185

any of those things which Christ worketh not by me for the obedience of
the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the virtue of signs and wonders in
the power of the Holy Spirit.”84 Note that the Apostle here says that he
dare not speak or proclaim or lay upon others that which he did not have
from Christ; much less may any bishop or prince, however great. Hence,
it appears that ecclesiastical institutions, which for the most part are not
the words of Christ and cannot be derived from Christ’s words, are use¬
less and superfluous....
14. Also, to the Galatians, “If any one preach to you a gospel besides
that which you have received, let him be anathema.” 85. ..
15. Also, in the Apocalypse, “If any man shall add to these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.” 8B...

27. An Account of the Hospitality of Heretics

by Yves of Narbonne

The following piece is excerpted from a letter written by one Yves of

Narbonne and included by Matthew Paris in his history of England. The
greater part of this letter is devoted to a description of the terrible ravages
of the Mongols (whom Matthew Paris calls Tartars or Tatars) in their in¬
vasion of central Europe in 1241, that being, no doubt, the reason why
Matthew copied it, for he was much interested in information about the
Mongols, as well as fond of reproducing documents in his text. We have
not translated those remarks but only the opening paragraphs of the letter,
in which the writer refers back to his earlier adventures. Yves addresses
himself to Gerald of Mallemort, archbishop of Bordeaux (1227-1261), one
of whose clerics he had been until, about 1214, he fled from threatened
prosecution for heresy and found refuge in Italy. The date is fixed by refer¬
ence to the activities of Robert of Curson, papal legate and preacher of the
crusade, who was in southern France late in 1213 and for some months in
1214,1 and presided at a council at Bordeaux in June of that year. Questions
can be raised about the validity of the letter. If it is genuine, it was written
many years after the events described. Furthermore, although Matthew Paris
has often been highly praised as a historian, the most recent study judges
that, while he was an assiduous compiler of contemporary events, he was
neither critical about the materials he used nor above altering the text of
documents to suit his own purposes. However, Yves’s narrative is cited by
several scholars as valid evidence.2 We translate it because it is one of the
few documents which purport to give a first-person account of close associa¬
tion with heretics and because it illustrates the undoubted ease of movement
among heretical communities in northern Italy.
186 Heresy in Italy, 1160-1216
For the portion of his Chronica majora [greater chronicle] which covers
the period from Creation to 1236, Matthew Paris was dependent on earlier
writings; thereafter until 1259, the date of his death, the work is his own.
(The continuation after 1259 was the work of William Rishanger.) The most
recent study of the author is Richard Vaughan’s Matthew Paris. The
Chronica majora was translated in part by J. A. Giles as Matthew Paris's
English History from the Year 1235 to 1273.
The following passage is translated from Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica
majora, ed. by H. R. Luard (Rolls Series, LVII [7 vols., London, 1872-
1883]), IV, 270-72, by permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and
the Kraus Reprint Corporation.

1214 (written circa 1241)

To Gerald, by grace of God, archbishop of Bordeaux, Yves, so-called
of Narbonne and once the lowliest of his clerics, sends greeting....
I was once, as you know, charged by my rivals with heretical depravity
before Master Robert of Curson, at that time legate of the Roman Curia.
Because I was ashamed, not from a troubled conscience but at the base¬
ness of the charge, I refused to stand trial and by that very fact was the
more suspect. Therefore, with the threats of that man of authority in my
ears, I fled from the face of the pursuer and thereafter was driven to
wander through many lands. I laid my complaint before the Patarines3
who inhabit the city of Como: how on account of their beliefs (which, as
God is my witness, I had never learned or accepted), I became an exile
from the judgments hurled against me. They were pleased to hear this
and considered me fortunate to be persecuted for the sake of righteous¬
ness. I dwelt there among them for three months, sumptuously and de¬
lightfully, and kept silence, as every day I listened to the many errors,
or rather horrors, which they propounded against the apostolic faith. By
kindness, they put me under obligation to promise that henceforth I
would try to convince any Christians with whom I fell into serious con¬
versation that no one could gain salvation in the faith of Peter, and that
I would consistently teach this doctrine. And when I had given my word
for this, they began to disclose their secrets, revealing that they sent to
Paris capable students from nearly all Lombard and from some Tuscan
cities. There some studied logic, others theology, with the aim of
strengthening their own error and overthrowing the Catholic faith. To
the same purpose they also sent numerous merchants to the fairs, where
they might pervert wealthy laymen who shared their table, or their hosts,
with whom they had the opportunity for talk on intimate terms. Thus
27. Yves of Narbonne 187
they engaged in manifold pursuits, at one moment enriching themselves
with others’ money, at the next, in equal degree, collecting a treasure of
souls for Antichrist.
When I begged leave from these degenerate brethren, they sent me to
enjoy the hospitality of their fellows in faith in Milan. I traveled through
all the cities of Lombardy situated in the Po valley, living always among
the Patarines; always, when I left, receiving from them an introduction to
others.4 At last I reached the famous town of Gemona in Friuli, where
I drank the superb Patarine wine, ate raisins,5 cherries, and other deli¬
cious food, and deceived the deceivers by professing to be a Patarine.
But, as God is my witness, I remained a Christian in faith if not in perfect
deed. After three days in Gemona, I traveled on in the company of a lay
brother, with leave from my hosts but under the curse of one of their
bishops, Peter Gallus by name, to whom I was an object of suspicion. I
heard later that he was deposed for fornication.6 We reached the canals
of Aquileia and, journeying thence, found lodging among the brethren
in a town called Friesach.
The next morning the lay brother left me, and alone I crossed Carin-
thia to reach a town in Austria called Neustadt7 in German, which
means “New City.” There I was welcomed by some members of a new
religious group called Beguins,8 For several years I found shelter in the
nearby city of Vienna and in neighboring places, and there combined,
alas, good behavior with bad, for by the devil’s urging I lived incon¬
tinently and did harm to my soul; but meanwhile I recalled many persons
from the above-mentioned heresy.
Roused to wrath by these and many other sins which made their ap¬
pearance in the Christian community, God has become a hostile destroyer
and a terrible avenger.... [The remainder of the letter describes in lurid
fashion the atrocities of the Tatars.]
BLANK PAGE
 28. A Debate between Catholics and Heretics
The spread of heresy in Languedoc met no consistently effective resistance
during the second half of the twelfth century. The Church was everywhere
in low esteem, its authority discredited by the sorry character of certain of
its ministers. The teaching of the Cathars made an appeal to some elements
in every class and locality; their proselytizing was tacitly permitted when
it was not actively abetted by nobles of the countryside and burghers of
the towns. Attempts by local ecclesiastics to curb Catharist influence little
availed, as the following account shows. In the early summer of 1165,1
the bishop of Albi, accompanied by some notable representatives of Church
and lay authority in the region, interrogated and debated with spokesmen
for an alleged heretical sect at Lombers, a walled village overlooked by a
feudal stronghold, some ten miles south of Albi. The nobles of Lombers,
even though (or perhaps because) they held from the bishop of Albi, were
sympathetic protectors of the accused; thus the bishop may have hoped to
prove the fact of heresy and thus bring into play the ban on dealings of any
kind between Christians and heretics which had been enacted by the Council
of Tours in 1163.2 There seems to be little doubt of the Catharist influence
on the alleged heretics, although their tenets are also reminiscent of the
teaching of Peter of Bruys and Henry, and the question of dualism was not
explicitly evoked. The procedure followed at Lombers—confrontation of
heretics and their accusers in open debate before judges—became not un¬
usual in southern France in the following years.3 The episode at Lombers
is included here primarily because it illustrates the growth of heresy in the
region and the increasing boldness of the heretics.4
For the situation of the Church and of heresy at that time in Languedoc,
see Louis de Lacger, “L’Albigeois pendant la crise de l’albigeisme,” Revue
d’histoire ecclesiastique, XXIX (1933), 272-315, 586-633, 849-904 (the
Lombers episode is discussed on pp. 281-82); Guiraud, Histoire de requisi¬
tion, Vol. I, chaps. IX-XII; and Luchaire, Innocent III et la croisade des
albigeois, pp. 1-46.
The text translated here is from Acta concilii Lumbariensisi in Recueil
des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. by Martin Bouquet et aL (24
vols., Paris, 1738-1904), XTV, 431-34. It also appears in Mansi, Concilia,
XXII, 157-68, where it is expanded by inclusion of the numerous scriptural
texts cited by the adversaries.5
190 Heresy in Southern France

1165
In the year of the Lord 1165, this definitive judgment was rendered
in an affair involving controversy, accusation, and attack upon the .

Catholic faith which certain persons, who chose to be called Good

Men6 and who had the support of the knights of Lombers,7 wished to
overthrow. This judgment was rendered through Bishop William of
Albi,8 by assessors chosen and assigned by each of the two sides, who
examined the matter and assisted the aforementioned bishop—to wit,
Bishop Gaucelin of Lodeve, Abbot [Rigaud] of Castres, Abbot [Peter]
of Ardorel, Abbot [Gausbert] of Candeil, and Arnold Beben—in the
presence of good men, both clergy and laity, namely, the Lord Arch¬
bishop Pons of Narbonne; Bishop Aldebert of Nimes; Bishop Gerard of
Toulouse; Bishop William of Agde; Abbot Raymond of Saint-Pons;
Abbot Peter of Cendras; [Vidal], abbot of Fontfroide; [Henry], abbot
of Gaillac; [Maurin], provost of Toulouse; [William], provost of Albi;
the archdeacons of Narbonne and Albi: [Guy], prior of Saint-Mary of
Montpellier; B[ernard], prior of Goudargues; Master Blanc and Hugh
de Vereiras; and, of the laity, Viscount [Raymond] Trencavel of Beziers;
[Constance], wife of Count Raymond of Toulouse; Viscount Sicard of
Lautrec; Isam of Dourgne; and many other persons, almost the whole
population of Albi and of Lombers, together with people of other
towns.
In the first instance, the bishop of Lodeve, commanded thereto by
the bishop of Albi and his assessors, asked those who chose to be called
Good Men whether they accepted the law of Moses, the Prophets, the
Psalms, the Old Testament, and the doctors of the New Testament.
Before the whole assemblage they replied that they did not accept the
law of Moses, nor the Prophets, nor the Psalms, nor the Old Testament,
but only the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, the seven canonical Epistles,
the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse.
Second, he asked about their faith, as they themselves were wont to
expound it. In reply, they said they would not speak to that point unless
forced to do so.
Third, he asked them about the baptism of children, and whether
they were saved by baptism. They answered that they would not discuss
this but that they would answer questions on the Gospels and the
Epistles.
Fourth, he questioned them about the body and blood of the Lord:
28, Catholics Debate Heretics 191

where they were consecrated, by whom, who partook thereof, and if the
consecration was more efficaciously or better done by a good man than
by an evil one. They replied that those who partook worthily were
saved; those who did so unworthily took unto themselves damnation.
And they said that the consecration was effected by any good man,
cleric or laymen as well; and they would answer nothing further, because
they ought not to be forced to answer questions about their faith.
Fifth, he asked them about marriage and if husband and wife who
were carnally united could be saved. They were not willing to reply
except to say only that man and woman were joined together to avoid
lewdness and fornication, as St. Paul said in his Epistle.9
Sixth, he questioned them about repentance: whether repentance at
the moment of death led to salvation; whether warriors who were
mortally wounded would be saved if they repented at the last moment;
if each person ought to confess his sins to the priests and ministers of
the Church or to any layman at all, or to those of whom St. James
says, “Confess your sins one to another.”10 They said in reply that for
the sick it was sufficient to confess to whomever they chose. They were
unwilling, however, to reply to the question about warriors, since St.
James speaks only of the sick.
He also asked them if contrition of the heart and confession by the
mouth alone were enough, or if one must make atonement after penance
was imposed, by fasts, flagellations, and almsgiving, lamenting their
sins if they were capable of doing so. They answered, saying that James
said no more than that they should confess and so be saved; they did
not seek to be better than the apostle and add anything of their own,
as bishops do.
They also made many unsolicited statements. They affirmed that
they should not swear any kind of oath, as Jesus said in the Gospel and
James in his Epistle.11 They said also that Paul stated in his Epistle
what kind of bishops and priests were to be ordained in the churches,12
and that if the men ordained were not such as Paul had specified, they
were not bishops and priests but ravening wolves, hypocrites, and
seducers, lovers of salutations in the marketplace, of the chief seats and
the higher places at table, desirous of being called rabbis and masters,
contrary to the command of Christ, wearers of albs and gleaming rai¬
ment, displaying bejeweled gold rings on their fingers, which their
Master Jesus did not command; and they poured forth many other
192 Heresy in Southern France

reproaches. Therefore, because these were not bishops or priests, except

such priests as those who had betrayed Jesus, they owed them no
obedience, for they were wicked, not good teachers, but hired servants.
In rebuttal of these assertions, many New Testament texts were
quoted by Lord Pons, archbishop of Narbonne, and Bishop Aldebert of
Nimes, and Abbot Peter of Cendras, and the abbot of Fontfroide. When
the allegations and the New Testament authorities from both sides had
been heard—for those persons would accept no decision except on the
basis of the New Testament—the bishop of Lodeve, calling for silence
from all, pronounced the following definitive sentence on the basis of
law and of the New Testament, by command of the bishop of Albi and
the advisers named above, in the presence of all those aforenamed:
“I, Gaucelin, bishop of Lodeve, by command of the bishop of Albi
and his assessors, do adjudge those who call themselves Good Men to
be heretics. I condemn the sect of Oliver13 and his companions, and
those who adhere to the sect of the heretics of Lombers, wherever they
may be. This judgment we find on the basis of the texts of the New
Testament, to wit, the Gospels, the Epistles, the Psalms [sic], the Acts
of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse.”
The heretics retorted that the bishop who delivered the sentence was
a heretic, not they; that he was their enemy; that he was a ravening
wolf, a hypocrite, an enemy to God; and that he had not delivered a
proper judgment. They were not willing to answer questions about their
faith because they were on their guard against him, as the Lord en¬
joined on them in the Gospel, ‘‘Beware of false prophets who come to
you in the clothing of sheep but inwardly they are ravening wolves.’ 14

This man was their deceitful persecutor, and they were prepared to
prove by the Gospel and the Epistles that he was no good shepherd,
neither he nor the other bishops and priests, but rather they were
hirelings.
The bishop replied that the judgment found against them was based
on law. He was prepared to uphold it in the court of the Catholic pope,
Lord Alexander,15 or in the court of Louis, king of France,16 or in the
court of Raymond, count of Toulouse,17 or in that of his wife, who was
present, or in the court of Trencavel,18 who was present; that it was
properly adjudged; and that they were manifestly heretics and notorious
for heresy. And he promised that he himself would charge them with
heresy in any Catholic court and would submit himself to the decision
28. Catholics Debate Heretics 193

of a trial.
When, indeed, they saw that they were overcome and confounded,
they turned to the whole people and said: “Listen, good people, to our
faith which we will declare. We do this now, moreover, out of love for
you and for your sake.” The aforesaid bishop replied, “You do not
say that you will speak for the sake of the Lord but for the sake of the
people.” They went on:
“We believe in one God, living and true, triune and one, the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son of God took on flesh, was bap¬
tized in the Jordan, fasted in the wilderness, preached our salvation,
suffered, died, and was buried, descended into hell, arose on the third
day, and ascended into heaven. On Pentecost, he sent the Spirit, the
Paraclete, unto his disciples, and he shall come on the Day of J udgment
to judge the quick, the dead, and all who will rise again. We acknowl¬
edge also that what we believe in our hearts we ought to confess with
our mouths. We believe that no one shall be saved who does not partake
of the body of Christ, and that it is not consecrated except in the Church
and also unless by a priest, whether he be good or bad, nor is consecra¬
tion more effectively done by a good man than by an evil one. We
believe also that one is saved only by baptism and that children are
saved by baptism. We also believe that husband and wife may be saved,
even though they know each other carnally, and that everyone should
accept penance by mouth and in heart, and be baptized by a priest in
a church. And if there be anything further in the Church that can be
shown from the Gospels and the Epistles, that we will accept and
confess.”
The aforesaid bishop also demanded of them if they would take an
oath to uphold and believe this faith, and whether or not there was
anything further on which they held and preached wrongful opinions
which they should confess. In reply, they declared that they would take
no oath of any kind because that would be done contrary to the Gospel
and the Epistles. Then passages from the New Testament were quoted
against them by the aforesaid Catholics.
Having heard the citations from both parties, the aforesaid bishop
rose and pronounced judgment in these words:
“I, Gaucelin, bishop of Lod&ve, at the bidding and by the mandate
of the bishop of Albi and his assessors, adjudge and pronounce sentence
that these heretics hold wrong opinions in the matter of oath-taking.
194 Heresy in Southern France

They ought to take oath if they wish to be reasonable, and an oath

should be taken when the faith is in question. Because they are notorious
and defamed for heresy, they ought to prove their innocence and,
coming again into the unity of the Church, they ought to affirm their
faith by taking an oath in the form which the Church adopts and accepts,
lest weak persons who are in the Church be misled and lest one sick
sheep infect the whole flock.19 Nor does this contradict the Gospel and
the Pauline Epistles. For the words of the Gospel—‘Let your speech be
yea, yea; no, no;’ ‘Swear not, neither by heaven nor by the earth’ *#—do
not prohibit swearing in God’s name but only in the name of creatures.”
Seeing that they were overcome on this point, they said that the
bishop of Albi had made an agreement with them that they would not
be required to take an oath. This the bishop of Albi himself denied.
Then the bishop of Albi arose, saying: “I confirm and approve the
sentence which Bishop Gaucelin of Lodeve here promulgated at my
command. I warn the knights of Lombers no longer to support those
persons, by reason of the solemn promise that they made in my hands.”
[The document concludes with statements approving the sentence, by
each of the Catholic participants and observers listed in the first
paragraph.]

29. Action against Heresy in Toulouse

Before the last decade of the twelfth century, the energy if not the initiative
for most attempts to restrain or repress heretics in Languedoc came from
outside that area. One such in 1178, while it had small result in Toulouse
itself, was important for the precedents it established and for the wide
publicity that it gained. In 1176, Raymond V, count of Toulouse (1148-
1194), found it expedient to appeal for aid against heretics within his own
lands. He had been involved in large political events for more than a
decade but rather less than successfully. He contended for possession of
Provence with Alphonse II, king of Aragon (1162-1196), but lost it by 1176,
and Aragonese pressure against the western borders of the county of
Toulouse continued unremittingly. His ally, Frederick Barbarossa, was about
to yield in the struggle with Pope Alexander III. His neighbors in Aquitaine
were a chronic threat, and the count had lost control of his chief city to its
consuls. While he was by no means powerless, the course of wisdom for
Raymond V was to re-establish his credit in the Christian world by action
to defend the faith against the heresy for which Toulouse was becoming
notorious.1 In 1178, therefore, he appealed to the Cistercian order for
services such as St. Bernard had rendered in Toulouse in 1145 (see No. 15),
supplementing this with an entreaty for assistance of a more forceful kind
29. Action in Toulouse 195
from the monarchs of France and England, to each of whom he had done
homage.8 The appeals did not fall on deaf ears. Louis VII and Henry II
discussed the situation in 1177 and pondered their personal intervention.
The abbot of Clairvaux, Henry of Marcy, urgently demanded of Alexander
III that the papal legate in France be empowered to act. The pope yielded
to Henry’s importunacy, but the two kings ultimately decided only to dis¬
patch a mission in their name. Thus in 1178 a joint legatine and royal com¬
mission arrived in Toulouse, empowered to preach, to investigate, to con¬
demn, and to use force as necessary against heretics; it was, in the opinion
of Henri Maisonneuve, a “real inquisitorial tribunal,” which operated for
three months in the city. The heretics they pursued were called Arians,
perhaps because St. Bernard’s terminology of 1145 was still in the minds
of the reporters; but the doctrines with which they were charged (and which
they denied) were Catharist.
Both the legate, Peter of Pavia, who was cardinal-priest of San Crisogono,
and Henry of Marcy, abbot of Clairvaux, wrote letters for general circu¬
lation, describing their experiences in Toulouse and its vicinity.3 These
formed the basis for an entry in the Gesta Henrici,4 an English chronicle of
the reign of Henry II, which in turn was adopted and slightly revised by
Roger of Hoveden, with copies of the legate’s and abbot’s letters appended,
as in the Gesta Henrici. Roger’s narrative is thus by no means independent,
but it does summarize the events of 1178 at convenient length without
sacrifice of essentials. Roger of Hoveden was one of the clerks of Henry II.
He apparently retired from royal service on the death of the king. His
chronicle is dependent on earlier sources for events to 1192, independent
and valuable thereafter to 1201, in which year the author probably died.
However, even the portion which relies on the anonymous Gesta Henrici
does not follow it slavishly. On Roger of Hoveden, see Stubbs’s introduc¬
tion to his edition (I, 13 ff.); and Dictionary of National Biography, IX,
1322-23. There is an English translation of the chronicle by Henry T. Riley,
The Annals of Roger de Hoveden (2 vols., London, 1853).
An excellent account of the situation in Toulouse and of the events of
1178 appears in Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen, pp. 74-87. Shorter treat¬
ments will be found in Maisonneuve, pp. 129-35, and Lea, History of the
Inquisition, I, 121-23. Devic and Vaissete, Histoire de Languedoc, VI, 77-
86, with the notes in VII, 11-14, is still basic.
The narrative translated here is from Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houe-
dene, ed. by William Stubbs (Rolls Series, LI [4 vols., London, 1868-1871]),
II, 150-55, by permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and the Kraus
Reprint Corporation.

1178
Meanwhile, the Arian heresy, which, as we have already said, had
been condemned in the province of Toulouse,5 had again revived. When
this came to the attention of the king of France and the king of England,
196 Heresy in Southern France

they were aroused by zeal for the Christian faith to a determination to

go there personally in order to drive entirely out of their lands those
aforesaid heretics. But with the passage of a little time, it seemed to
them that more effective than for themselves to hasten there in person
would be to send wise men to convert those heretics to the Christian
faith by preaching and teaching. For they were reminded of the saying:
“It is enough to command vengeance. The dread of your name will
accomplish more than your sword. Your presence diminishes your
fame.”6
Therefore, they dispatched thither Peter, cardinal-priest of San
Crisogono, the legate from the Apostolic See;7 the archbishops of
Bourges and Narbonne;8 Reginald and John, bishops of Bath and
Poitiers respectively;9 Henry, abbot of Clairvaux;10 and many other
churchmen, with instructions to convert those heretics to the Christian
faith by their preaching or to prove them, on solid grounds, to be
heretics and drive them from the bounds of Holy Mother Church and
from the company of the faithful. “Who when they were come, prayed
for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he was not as yet
come upon any of them.”11 Furthermore, these kings chose Raymond,
count of Toulouse; the viscount of Turenne, Raymond of Castelnau;12
and other mighty men, and commanded them to attend the cardinal
and his companions in the faith of Christ, and to banish those heretics
from their lands by the force of their power.
Now, when the cardinal and the other Catholic men had entered the
city of Toulouse, they found there a certain rich man,13 who possessed
two mansions (castella), one within the city, the other outside the city
walls.14 Before their arrival, he had admitted that he was a sectary of
heretical depravity, but now, swayed by fear and wishing to conceal
that detestable sect, he pretended to be the most Christian of men.
When this was disclosed to him,15 the cardinal ordered to appear before
him the wealthy man in question, who, when he came to confess his
faith, was found to impugn all the articles of the Christian faith. And
consequently he was adjudged a manifest heretic by the cardinal and the
bishops with him, and was condemned.16 Their verdict was that his
property would be confiscated; his towers which were rich and very
beautiful, should be demolished. When the man found himself con¬
demned and his goods confiscated, he approached the cardinal and the
bishops, his associates, prostrating himself at their feet to beg for for-
29. Action in Toulouse 197

giveness. Penance was imposed upon him: Naked, he was flogged

through the squares and streets of the city; thereafter he took oath that
he would journey to Jerusalem and remain there in service to God for
a period of three years. If he returned home after three years, his pos¬
sessions would be restored to him,17 on condition that his towers be
razed in testimony of heretical depravity, and that he would pay five
hundred pounds of silver to his lord, the count of Toulouse. Upon
accomplishment of these things, many heretics, fearing that they might
be treated in similar fashion, came to the cardinal and his associates to
confess their error in secret and, seeking pardon, they were treated
with mercy.
Among other things, it came to their attention that certain false
brethren, namely Raymond and Bernard Raymond,18 and some other
heresiarchs, transforming themselves into angels of light,1" although
they were minions of Satan, and preaching matters contrary to the
Christian faith, had by their false teaching deceived the souls of many
persons, whom they drew with themselves to hell. On being summoned
to come before the cardinal and his associates to confess their faith, they
replied that they would appear before them if they had safe-conduct to
come and to return.20 Once this safe-conduct to come and depart was
granted, they presented themselves before the cardinal and the bishops,
the counts, barons, clergy, and attendant people, and brought with them
a certain document in which they had written the articles of their faith.
After they had read it through very carefully there seemed to be some
suspect statements therein which might conceal the heresy the men
had preached unless they were explained in greater detail. But when one
of them, speaking in Latin, sought to expound those written statements,
he could scarcely put two words together, for he was totally ignorant of
the Latin language. Thereupon, it was necessary for the cardinal and
the bishops to make a concession to them and to use the vernacular
because of their ignorance. To an examination on the articles of the
Christian faith, the men answered on all points as soundly and prudently
as though they were thoroughly Christian. But when the count of
Toulouse and others who had previously heard them preaching things
contrary to the Christian faith heard this, they were struck with astonish¬
ment and were kindled with zeal for the Christian faith. Rising to their
feet, they proved to the very faces of the men that they had manifestly
lied. They asserted that they had heard from some of them that there
198 Heresy in Southern France

were two gods, one good, the other evil; the good had created only
invisible things, those which could not be altered or corrupted; the evil
one had formed the heavens, the earth, men, and other visible things.
Others affirmed that they had heard in their preaching that the body
of Christ was not consecrated by the ministry of an unworthy priest or
of one who was trammeled by any crime. Moreover, other persons
declared that they had heard them say in their preaching that a man
and wife could not be saved if each rendered the other their marital due.
Others also said that they had heard from them that baptism was of no
benefit to children and declared that they had uttered many other
blasphemies against God and Holy Church and the Catholic faith, of
which, because of their detestable enormity, it is better to be silent than
to speak.
But these heretics retorted to those charges with a declaration that
false witness was brought against them. Publicly, before the cardinal
and the bishops and all those who were present, they stated, confessed,
and resolutely declared that there is one God most high, who had
created all things visible and invisible. They utterly denied that there
were two principles. They also confessed that a priest, whether good or
wicked, righteous or unrighteous, even if he were known indubitably to
be an adulterer or a criminal of some other sort, could consecrate the
body and blood of Christ, and that by the ministry of such a priest and
the virtue of the holy words which were spoken by the Lord, the bread
and wine were truly transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.
Also, they asserted, children or adults baptized in our baptism are
saved and no one can be saved without this baptism, denying absolutely
that they used any other baptism, or the imposition of the hand which
was charged against them. No less did they affirm that man or woman
united in marriage, even if each rendered the other their marital due,
could be saved—being absolved by the blessing of blameless matrimony,
if no other sin stands in the way—and they are never damned for that
reason. Furthermore, they declared that archbishops, bishops, priests,
monks, canons, hermits, Templars, and Hospitalers may attain salvation.
They said it was worthy and just to enter churches founded to the
honor of God and of the saints and, showing honor and reverence to
their priests and other ministers, one should give them the first fruits
and tithes, and undertake devoutly and faithfully all parochial duties.
They declared in praiseworthy fashion, among other things, that alms
29. Action in Toulouse 199
should be given to churches as well as to the poor or to any beggar.
All these things, they insisted, they understood with right understanding,
although previously they had been accused of denying them.
The cardinal and the bishops ordered the men to take an oath that
they believed in their hearts what their lips had confessed. But verily,
like men of twisted mind and warped purpose, they were still unwilling
to abandon their heresy, in which the superficial meaning of any
authority seemed to delight their gross and dull minds. They took as
pretext the words of the verse in which, as one reads in the Gospel, the
Lord said, “Swear not at all; let your communication be yea, yea; nay,
nay,”21 asserting that they must not be sworn, even though the Lord
himself, one often reads, took oath, as is written: “The Lord hath sworn
and he will not repent”;22 “By my own self have I sworn, saith the
Lord”;23 and the Apostle, “An oath is the end of all controversy.”24
Furthermore, like lunatics not understanding the Scriptures, they fell
into the trap from which they had hidden. For although they held the
oath in abhorrence as an execrable thing forbidden by the Lord, they
are convicted of taking an oath in the very text of their confession, for
they had said, “In truth, as God exists, we believe in this way and we
say that this is our faith.” They were not aware that to adduce verity
and the word of God in witness of a true statement is, without any doubt
at all, to swear, as that which we read of the Apostle, when he said,
“For we say unto you in the word of the Lord”;25 and elsewhere, “God
is my witness,”28 and other similar passages verify. These can easily be
found by persons who have read and understood Holy Writ.
Since the Church is not wont to deny the bosom of pity to those who
return, when these men had been convicted by numerous competent
witnesses and many more were still coming forward to give evidence
against them, they [the legate and bishops] exhorted them most care¬
fully to put aside all the depravity of heresy and return to the verity of
faith. And since the men had been excommunicated by the lord pope,
by the cardinal, by the archbishops of Bourges and Narbonne, and by
the bishop of Toulouse for their perverse preaching and sect, they were
urged to accept reconciliation according to the usage of the Church.
They were turned aside as a crooked bow27 and were hardened in an
incorrigible attitude and refused to do so. The cardinal and bishops, in
the presence of the whole people, together with the bishop of Poitiers
and the other religious men who were present with them in all things,
200 Heresy in Southern France

after lighting candles, denounced them as excommunicate and damned

them, together with their sponsor the devil, and they commanded the
faithful of Christ carefully to shun the aforesaid Bernard and Raymond
and their accomplices as excommunicates and men given over to Satan.
If in the future the men should preach to them anything but that which
had been confessed in their hearing, they should reject the preaching
as false and contrary to the Catholic and apostolic faith, and they should
drive them far from their lands as heretics and forerunners of Antichrist.
Moreover, the count of Toulouse and the other eminent men of this
province attested by taking oath before all the people that from then
on, neither on petition or for bribes, would they shelter heretics.28

30. The Origins of the Waldensian Heresy

The origin of the Poor of Lyons, or Waldenses,1 their break with the Church
on the issue of the right of laymen to preach, and their lapse into heresy in
this and other matters are recounted here and in Numbers 31-38. These
documents together tell the story of Waldes,2 a merchant of Lyons, his con¬
version to the apostolic ideal, and the first years of the religious movement he
inspired, which was to be the most enduring of the medieval heresies. Until
his insistent evangelism overrode the papal and archiepiscopal prohibitions
on preaching, Waldes appears in every respect as a forerunner of Francis
of Assisi; willingness to obey authority was the fundamental difference
between them.3
There is an extensive literature on the Waldenses and related groups,
although of their origins there are not many detailed accounts in English.
We may cite Davison, Forerunners of St. Francis; and Bernard Marthaler,
“Forerunners of the Franciscans,” Franciscan Studies, new ser., XVIII
(1958), 133-42. Dondaine cast new light on Waldes with his “Aux Origines
du Valdeisme,” Archivum fratrum praedicatorum, XVI (1946), 191-235;
and Christine Thouzellier has recently restudied the movement in Catharisme
et Valdeisme, pp. 16-18, 24-36, and passim.4
Two excerpts from the Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis, ed.
by Georg Waitz, in Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, XXVI,
447, 449, are translated here by permission of Anton Hiersemann Verlag
and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

1173
In the course of the same year (that is, 1173) of our Lord’s incarna¬
tion, there was at Lyons in Gaul5 a certain citizen named Waldes, who
had amassed a great fortune through the wicked practice of lending at
30. Origins of Waldensian Heresy 201

interest. One Sunday he had been attracted by the crowd gathered

around a minstrel and had been touched by the latter’s words. Wishing
to talk to him more fully, he took him to his home, for the minstrel was
at a place in his narrative in which Alexis had come peacefully to a
happy end in his father’s house.4
On the following morning, the said citizen hastened to the school of
theology to seek counsel for his soul’s welfare and, when he had been
instructed in the many ways of attaining to God, asked the master which
was the most sure and perfect way of all. The master replied to him in
the words of the Lord: “If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast,”7
and so on. Waldes came to his wife and offered her the choice of keep¬
ing for herself all his property in either movable goods or real estate,
that is, in lands, waters, woods, meadows, houses, rents, vineyards,
mills, and ovens. Though greatly saddened by the necessity, she chose
the real estate. From his movable goods, he made restitution to those
from whom he had profited unjustly; another considerable portion of
his wealth he bestowed upon his two small daughters, whom without
their mother’s knowledge he confided to the order of Fontevrault; but
the greatest part he disbursed for the needs of the poor.
Now, a very severe famine was then raging throughout all Gaul and
Germany. Wherefore Waldes, the citizen mentioned above, on three
days a week from Pentecost to St. Peter in Chains8 gave bountifully of
bread, vegetables, and meat to all who came to him. On the feast of
the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin,9 as he was in the streets distrib¬
uting an appreciable sum of money among the poor, he cried out,
“No man can serve two masters, God and mammon.”14 Then all the
citizens hurried to him, supposing that he had lost his senses, but he
climbed to a commanding spot and adressed them thus: “My friends
and fellow townsmen! Indeed, I am not, as you think, insane, but I
have taken vengeance on my enemies who held me in bondage to them,
so that I was always more anxious about money than about God and
served the creature more than the Creator. I know that a great many
find fault with me for having done this publicly. But I did it for myself
and also for you: for myself, so that they who may henceforth see me in
possession of money may think I am mad; in part also for you, so that
you may learn to fix your hope in God and to trust not in riches.”
As he was leaving the church on the following day, he asked a certain
citizen, one of his former associates, to give him food for the love of
202 Heresy in Southern France

God. The latter took him to his home and said, “As long as I live I will
give you the necessities of life.” His wife, on learning of this incident,
was no little saddened. Like one beside herself, she rushed into the
presence of the archbishop of the city11 to complain that her husband
had begged his bread from another rather than from her. This situation
moved all who were present to tears, including the archbishop himself.
At the archbishop’s bidding, the citizen brought his guest [Waldes] with
him into his presence, whereupon the woman, clinging to her husband’s
garments, cried, “Is it not better, O my husband, that I, rather than
strangers, should atone for my sins through alms to you?” And from
that time forth, by command of the archbishop, he was not permitted in
that city to take food with others than his wife.

1177
Waldes, the citizen of Lyons whom we have already mentioned,
having taken a vow to the God of heaven henceforth and throughout his
life never to possess either gold or silver or to take thought for the
morrow,12 began to gather associates in his way of life. They followed
his example in giving their all to the poor and became devotees of
voluntary poverty. Little by little, both publicly and privately, they
began to declaim against their own sins and those of others.

31. The Waldenses at the

Third Lateran Council
The first of these two items is another excerpt from the anonymous chron¬
icle of Laon. The second item is by the Englishman Walter Map, who
encountered the Waldenses at Rome. Born about 1140, Map served as an
itinerant justice for Henry II after 1162, and before 1186 he had risen to
the post of chancellor of the bishop of Lincoln. He died between 1208 and
1210. In his own day Map had a reputation as a wit and raconteur; his
De nugis curialium [courtier’s trifles], a collection of legends, anecdotes,
gossip, and personal observations, was probably written in bits and snatches
between 1182 and 1192. It has previously been translated into English by
Montague R. James, as Walter Map's “De nugis curialium ” and also by
Frederick Tupper and Marbury B. Ogle, as Master Walter Map's Book De
nugis curialium.
Part A is translated from Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis,
ed. by Georg Waitz, in Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, XXVI,
449, by permission of Anton Hiersemann Verlag and the Monumenta Ger-
31. Waldenses at Lateran Council 203
maniae Historica. Part B is translated from Walter Map De nugis curialium
i.xxxi, ed. by Montague R. James (Anecdota oxoniensia *.. medieval and
modern series, XIV [Oxford, 1914]), pp. 60-62, by permission of the Claren¬
don Press.

A. A REPORT IN THE CHRONICLE OF LAON

1179
The [Lateran] Council was summoned by Pope Alexander III....
This council condemned heresy and all protectors and defenders of
heretics.1 The pope embraced Waldes,2 approving his vow of voluntary
poverty but forbidding preaching by either himself or his followers
unless welcomed by the local priests.8 This injunction they observed for
a short time; then, from the day they became disobedient, they were the
cause of scandal to many and disaster to themselves.

B. WALTER MAP’s ACCOUNT OF THE WALDENSES

1179
At the Roman council held under Pope Alexander III, I saw simple
and illiterate men called Waldenses, after their leader, Waldes, who was
a citizen of Lyons on the Rhone. They presented to the lord pope a
book written in French which contained the text and a gloss of the
Psalms and many of the books of both Testaments. They most urgently
requested him to authorize them to preach because they saw themselves
as experienced persons, although they were nothing more than dabblers.
It is the way of birds who see not the fine snares or the nets to suppose
that everywhere there is free passage. Do not men who engage in
sophistical discourse all their lives, who can trap and only with difficulty
be trapped, who are probers of the most profound depths, do not they,
for fear of giving offense, speak with reverence all the thoughts which
they reveal about God, whose state is so exalted that no praises or
powers of prayer can mount thereto except as mercy may draw them?
In every letter of the sacred page, so many precepts fly on wings of
virtue, such riches of wisdom are accumulated, that anyone to whom
God has granted the means4 may draw from its fullness. Shall pearls,
then, be cast before swine?5 Shall the Word be given to the ignorant,
whom we know to be incapable of receiving it, much less of giving in
their turn what they have received? Away with this, erase it! Let the
precious ointment on the head run down upon the beard, and thence
down to the skirt of the garment.6 Let waters be drawn from the
204 Heresy in Southern France

fountain,7 not from puddles in the streets.

I, the least among the many thousands who were summoned, was
scoffing at the Waldenses [and expressing surprise] that there should
be any consultation or delay in deciding their request, when I was
summoned by a certain great prelate to whom the supreme pontiff had
entrusted the charge of confessions. A target for shafts,8 I took my
seat. When many lawyers and men of learning had assembled, two
Waldenses who seemed the leaders of their group were brought before
me to argue about the faith, not for love of seeking the truth but hoping
that when I had been refuted my mouth might be stopped like one
speaking wicked things.9 I confess that I sat in fear lest in punishment
for my sins the gift of speech might be denied me before so great a
gathering. The bishop commanded me, who was preparing to answer,10
to test my skill against them. First, then, knowing that the lips of an ass
which eats thistles find lettuce unworthy of them,11 I put very easy
questions of which no one could be ignorant. “Do you believe in God
the Father?” They replied, “We do.” “And in the Son?” They answered,
“We do.” “And in the Holy Spirit?” They answered, “We do.” I went
on, “And in the mother of Christ?” They again, “We do.” They were
answered with derisive laughter from everyone present and withdrew in
confusion;12 deservedly, for, like Phaethon, who did not even know the
names of his horses,13 they who were taught by none sought to become
teachers.
They have no fixed habitations. They go about two by two, barefoot,
clad in woolen garments, owning nothing, holding all things common
like the apostles,14 naked, following a naked Christ. They are making
their first moves now in the humblest manner because they cannot
launch an attack. If we admit them, we shall be driven out.

32. A Profession of Faith

by Waldes of Lyons
Henry of Marcy, newly appointed cardinal and legate to France, came to
Lyons in March, 1180, or 1181, to preside over a diocesan council sum¬
moned by Archbishop Guichard.1 Henry, as abbot of Clairvaux, had taken
a leading part in a mission against the Cathars of Toulouse in 1178 (see
No. 29). Also present at the council was Geoffrey of Auxerre, abbot of
Hautecombe, who had accompanied St. Bernard on an earlier mission to
Toulouse, in 1145 (see No. 14). Archbishop Guichard had assisted in the
32. Profession of Faith by Waldes 205
condemnation of heretics at Vezelay in 1167 (see No. 41). Before these
dignitaries and other clergy, Waldes of Lyons presented himself to declare
his orthodoxy and affirm his staunch allegiance to the Church. This was
made necessary, we are told by Geoffrey of Auxerre, because Waldes and
his companions had been guilty of sacrilegious presumption in assuming the
office of preaching, in pretending to lives of poverty, and in living without
the labor of their own hands while they spoke in derogation of the clergy.2
The profession of faith made by Waldes on that occasion is, in fact, orthodox
in every way. It ends with a reaffirmation of his devotion to the life of
poverty but says no word about preaching.3
At first glance, the profession of faith of Waldes seems to be an explicit,
point-by-point repudiation of the contemporary teaching of the Cathars as
we know it from other sources. Such may have been Waldes’s intent, but
the credo was not originally drafted for use at Lyons and its basic elements
have a history long antedating the appearance of the Cathars. The essentials
of the profession of faith appear as early as the beginning of the sixth
century in an interrogatory forming part of the procedure for ordination of
bishops in the Gallican rite;4 they persisted thereafter in formularies con¬
nected with episcopal ordination.5 One very well known use of the profession
was in the ordination of Gerbert of Aufillac, later Pope Sylvester II (999-
1003), as archbishop of Rheims in 991.® Although Gerbert has been excul¬
pated from the suspicions of heresy which some historians raised against
him because of the phrasing of his profession of faith,7 his statement does
have a tenuous link with contemporary heresies. Andrew of Fleury describes
the outbreak of heresy at Orleans in 1022 in his biography of Gaucelin,
abbot of Fleury and archbishop of Bourges (d. 1029), and to that recital
appends a profession of faith to which Gaucelin subscribed at the time.
Except for the last sentence it is identical with the statement of Gerbert.8
But when in 1180 or 1181 this traditional text was presented to Waldes,
certain additions were made which reflect the concern of the prelates over
contemporary heresies. They included a declaration of belief in one God,
creator of all things visible and invisible, a statement that John the Baptist
was a holy and righteous man, and an affirmation that the hardships which
Christ endured in His human body were real, as was His passion. These
indubitably were inserted so that Waldes might repudiate the teaching of
the Cathars on these points. Other additions affirmed the validity of the
sacraments at the hands of sinful priests, approved the baptism of infants
and the sacrament of confirmation, declared belief in the real sacrifice of
the Eucharist, and approved both ecclesiastical orders and the utility of
good works for the dead. Errors on these matters were charged to the
Cathars but they were equally emphasized by other sects, notably the
followers of Henry of Lausanne and Peter of Bruys (see Nos. 12 and 13).
Thus, taking into account the character and experience of the dignitaries
at the Council of Lyons and the agitation which Waldes and his group had
already aroused in the city, it is most probable that the reformer was re-
206 Heresy in Southern France
quired to submit this statement of his faith not only because of his own
activities but also because of the prelates’ recollection of earlier movements
of protest and their apprehension about the Cathars. But, as has already
been said, Waldes’s oath was to be only an interlude in the development of
hostility between the Poor of Lyons and the Church. Within a short time a
new archbishop would expel them from the city and they would pass ove£
into outright heresy.
In the translation which follows, we have italicized those portions of
Waldes’s profession which are additions to the formula as it was used by
Gerbert at the end of the tenth century. The basic study of this episode is
the article by Dondaine from which we translate. The profession of Waldes
is printed and collated with later ones which were modeled on it0 in Gonnet,
Enchiridion fontium Valdensium, I, 32-36. An English translation also
appears in Petry, History of Christianity, pp. 350-52.
Our translation is from Antoine Dondaine, “Aux Origines du Valdeisme:
Une profession de foi de Valdes,” Archivum fratrum p raedicatorum, XVI
(1946), 231-32, by permission of the Istituto storico domenicano di S. Sabina.

1180 or 1181
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
and of the Most Blessed Mary, ever virgin.
Let it be known to all the faithful that I, Waldes, and all my brethren,
with the Holy Gospels placed before us, believe in heart, perceive
through faith, confess in speech, and in unequivocal words affirm that
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, one God,
the whole Trinity of Godhead coessential, consubstantial, coeternal, and
co-omnipotent; and that each Person of the Trinity is fully God, all three
persons one God, as is contained in the creeds, the Apostles' Creed, the
Nicene Creed\ and the Athanasian Creed. We believe in heart and
confess in words that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one
God to whom we testify is creator, maker, governor, and, in due time
and place, disposer of all things visible and invisible, all things of the
heavens, in the air, and in the waters, and upon the earth. We believe
that the author of the New and Old Testaments, that is, of the Law of
Moses and of the prophets and of the apostles, is one and the same God
who, existing in the Trinity as we have said, created all things; John the
Baptist, holy and righteous, was sent by Him and was filled with the
Holy Spirit in his mother's womb. We believe in heart and confess in
words that the incarnation of divinity came to pass, not in the Father
or in the Holy Spirit, but only in the Son, so that He who in divinity was
the Son of God the Father, true God from the Father, was true man
32. Profession of Faith by Waldes 207
from His mother, having true flesh from the womb of His mother and
a rational human soul, of both natures at one and the same time; that
is, He was both God and man, one Person, one Son, one Christ, one
God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ruler and author of all, born
of the Virgin Mary by true birth of the flesh. We believe in heart and
confess in words that He ate, drank, slept, and rested when weary from
travel; He suffered with true passion of His flesh, died in a true death
of His body, rose again with true resurrection of His flesh and true
restoration of His soul; in that flesh He afterward ate and drank,
ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and in it shall
come to judge the quick and the dead. We believe in one Church,
Catholic, holy, apostolic, and immaculate, outside of which no one can
be saved. We do not in any way reject the sacraments which are cele¬
brated in it with the aid of the inestimable and invisible power of the
Holy Spirit, even though they be ministered by a sinful priest, as long as
the Church accepts him; nor do we disparage the ecclesiastical offices
or the blessings celebrated by such a one, but with devout mind we
embrace them as if performed by the most righteous. We approve,
therefore, of the baptism of infants, for we confess and believe that they
are saved if they shall die after baptism before they commit sin. We
believe, indeed, that in baptism all sins are remitted as well that original
inherited sin as those which are committed voluntarily. We hold that
confirmation performed by a bishop, that is, by the imposition of hands,
is holy and worthy of reverent acceptance. We firmly believe and abso¬
lutely affirm that the Eucharist, that is, the bread and wine after con¬
secration, is the body and blood of Jesus Christ and in this nothing more
is accomplished by a good priest, nothing less by an evil one. We
acknowledge that God grants forgiveness to sinners truly penitent in
heart, who confess in words and do works of satisfaction in accordance
with the Scriptures, and most willingly will we consort with them. We
venerate the anointing of the sick with consecrated oil. We do not deny
that carnal marriage may be contracted, as the Apostle says; we utterly
forbid that those united in lawful fashion may separate; also, we do not
condemn a second marriage. We humbly praise and faithfully venerate
the ecclesiastical orders, that is, the episcopate and the priesthood and
the others of higher and lower degree, and all that is in good order
appointed to be read and sung as holy in the Church. We believe that
the devil was made evil not by nature but by his will. We put no re-
208 Heresy in Southern France

proach at all upon the eating of meat. We believe in heart and confess
in words the resurrection of this flesh which we bear and no other. We
firmly believe and affirm that judgment is still to come and that each
person will receive either reward or punishment for those things com¬
mitted in this flesh. We do not doubt that alms, and the Mass, and
other good works can be of benefit to the faithful who have died. A nd
since, according to James the Apostle, ufaith without works is dead”™
we have renounced the world; whatever we had we have given to the
poor, as the Lord advised, and we have resolved to be poor in such
fashion that we shall take no thought for the morrow, nor shall we
accept gold or silver, or anything of that sort from anyone beyond food
and clothing sufficient for the day. Our resolve is to follow the precepts
of the Gospel as commands. We wholeheartedly confess and believe that
persons remaining in the world, owning their own goods, giving alms
and doing other good works out of their own, and observing the com¬
mandments of the Lord, may be saved.
Wherefore, we earnestly assure Your Grace that if any shall chance
to come to your vicinity, declaring that they come from us but having
not this faith, you may know with certainty that they come not from us.n

33. Stephen of Bourbon on

the Early Waldenses
The comments of Stephen of Bourbon on the origin of the Poor of Lyons
are of particular value—even though he wrote more than half a century
after the events of which he speaks—because of the firsthand testimony he
had from those who had known Waldes. After studying at Paris, Stephen
entered the Dominican convent at Lyons in 1223 and some nine years later
became an inquisitor, active chiefly in the valley of the Saone and the
Rhone. About 1249 he retired to a cloister, and before his death in 1261 he
compiled a treatise intended primarily for the use of preachers, De septem
donis Spiritus Sancti [on the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit]. At a later place
(No. 52) we will present his observations on Waldensian doctrines as they
had developed by the mid-thirteenth century; here appears only his recol¬
lection of what he had heard about the origin of the sect. On Stephen see
pages ii-xx of the Introduction to the edition of his work.
The following passage is translated from Stephani de Borbone tractatus
de diversis materiis praedicabilis iv.vii.342, ed. by Albert Lecoy de la
Marche, as Anecdotes historiques, ligendes et apologues tirees du recueil
inedit d*Etienne de Bourbon, dominicain du XIIle siecle (Society de l’histoire
de France, Publications, CLXXXV [Paris, 1887]), pp. 290-92.
33, Stephen of Bourbon on Waldenses 209
1173-1184 (written after 1249)
Now, the Waldenses are so named from the founder of this heresy,
who was named Waldes. They are also called the Poor of Lyons because
it was in that city that they entered upon their life of poverty. They also
refer to themselves as the Poor in Spirit because of what the Lord said,
“Blessed are the poor in spirit.”1 Verily, they are poor in spirit—in
spiritual blessings and in the Holy Spirit.
The sect began in this way, according to what I have heard from
several persons who observed its earliest members and from a certain
priest, named Bernard Ydros, in the city of Lyons, who was himself
quite respected and well-to-do and a friend of our brethren [the Do¬
minicans]. When he was a young man and a scribe, he was employed
by Waldes to write in the vernacular the first books possessed by those
people, while a certain grammarian, Stephen of Anse by name—whom
I often encountered—translated and dictated them to him. Stephen, a
prebendary of the cathedral of Lyons, subsequently came to a sudden
death by falling from the upper story of a house which he was building.
There was in that city a rich man named Waldes, who was not well
educated, but on hearing the Gospels was anxious to learn more pre¬
cisely what was in them. He made a contract with these priests, the one
to translate them into the vernacular and the other to write them down
at his dictation. This they did, not only for many books of the Bible but
also for many passages from the Fathers, grouped by topics, which are
called Sentences. When this citizen had pored over these texts and
learned them by heart, he resolved to devote himself to evangelical
perfection, just as the apostles had pursued it. Selling all his possessions,
in contempt of the world he broadcast his money to the poor and pre¬
sumptuously arrogated to himself the office of the apostles. Preaching
in the streets and the broad ways2 the Gospels and those things that he
had learned by heart, he drew to himself many men and women that
they might do the same, and he strengthened them in the Gospel. He
also sent out persons even of the basest occupations to preach in the
nearby villages. Men and women alike, stupid and uneducated, they
wandered through the villages, entered homes, preached in the squares
and even in the churches, and induced others to do likewise.
t

Now, when they had spread error and scandal everywhere as a result
of their rashness and ignorance, they were summoned before the arch¬
bishop of Lyons, whose name was John,3 and were forbidden by him to
210 Heresy in Southern France

concern themselves with expounding the Scriptures or with preaching.

They, in turn, fell back on the reply made by the apostles. Their leader,
assuming the role of Peter, replied with his words to the chief priests:
“We ought to obey God, rather than men”4—the God who had com¬
manded the apostles to “Preach the gospel to every creature.”5 He
asserted this as though the Lord had said to them what He said to the
apostles; the latter, however, did not presume to preach until they had
been clothed with power from on high, until they had been illuminated
by the best and fullest knowledge, and had received the gift of tongues.
But these persons, that is to say, Waldes and his fellows, fell first into
disobedience by their presumption and their usurpation of the apostolic
office, then into contumacy, and finally under the sentence of excom¬
munication. After they were driven out of these parts and were sum¬
moned to the council which was held in Rome before the Lateran
Council, they remained obdurate and were finally judged to be
schismatics.6 Thereafter, since they mingled in Provence and Lombardy
with other heretics whose errors they imbibed and propagated, they
have been adjudged by the Church most hostile, infectious, and
dangerous heretics, who wander everywhere, assuming the appearance
but not the reality of holiness and sincerity.7 The more dangerous
the more they lie hidden from sight, they conceal themselves under
various disguises and occupations. Once there was captured a leader of
their sect who carried with him the trappings of various crafts by which
he could transform himself like Proteus. If he were sought in one
disguise and realized the fact, he would change to another. Sometimes
he wore the garb and marks of a pilgrim, at others he bore the staff and
irons of a penitent,8 at still other times he pretended to be a cobbler or
a barber or a harvester, and so on. Others do the same. This sect began
about the year of our Lord 1170, in the episcopacy of John, called “of
the Fair Hands,” archbishop of Lyons.

34. A Debate between Catholics

and Waldenses
Some of the Poor of Lyons moved southward after their expulsion from that
city and within a few years were preaching in the vicinity of Narbonne,
undeterred by their condemnation at a synod convened, probably shortly
before 1190, by Bernard Gaucelin, archbishop of Narbonne (1181-1191).
34. Catholics Debate Waldenses 211
When they continued to preach, the procedure used at Lombers 1165
Spokesmen for the Church and for the heretics came together
a and debate in or near Narbonne in about 1190.* What was
said furnished most of the material for a treatise by Bernard of Fontcaude.
Bernard had, in 1172, become head of a Premonstratensian abbey which
was the successor to an Augustinian community at Fontcaude, north of
Narbonne. Little more is known of him than can be gathered from this
work, written sometime after the death of Pope Lucius III in 1185, and
from the appearance of his name on a few other documents. He seems to
have died by 1193. The tract he wrote falls into three main divisions: the
error of the Waldensian refusal to obey prelates (chaps. I-III); the arguments
for and against their preaching (chaps. IV-VIII); and various other points
of doctrine challenged by heretics, among whom are to be recognized sects
other than the Waldenses (chaps. IX-XII). We translate here only the Pro¬
logue and the headings of the various chapters.
A recent study of Bernard’s work is Libert Verrees, “Le Traite de l’abbe
Bernard de Fontcaude contre les Vaudois et les Ariens,” Analecta Praemon-
stratensia, XXXI (1955), 5-35; and it has been analyzed in Thouzellier,
Catharisme et valdSisme, pp. 50-57. There is a partial, rather free translation
into English in Comba, History of the Waldenses, pp. 47 ff. The chapter
headings and certain statements of heretical belief from the treatise are also
printed in Gonnet, Enchiridion, I, 64-90.
The translation which follows is made from Bernardi abbatis Fontis callidi,
ordinis praemonstratensis, Adversus Waldensium sectam liber, in Migne,
Patrologia latina, CCIV, 793-95, 795-840, passim.

circa 1190
A TREATISE AGAINST THE WALDENSES 2

Prologue
1. At the time when Lord Lucius8 of glorious memory presided over
the Holy Roman Church, new heretics suddenly raised their head who,
choosing by chance a name with a forecast of the future, were called
Waldenses, a name surely derived from “dense vale” (valle densa),
inasmuch as they were enveloped in the deep, dense darkness of error.
Although condemned by the aforesaid highest pontiff, they spewed
the poison of their unbelief far and wide with rash impudence.
2. Because of this, Lord Bernard, archbishop of Narbonne, re¬
nowned for piety and integrity before God, an ardent lover of God’s
law, set himself as a strong wall against them and, therefore, convening
many clerics and laymen, monks and secular clergy, he summoned them
to judgment. What more is there to say? After the case was considered
with the greatest care, they were condemned.
212 Heresy in Southern France

3. Nevertheless, they dared thereafter to sow the seed of their

wickedness privately and publicly. And so again, although it was more
than was required, they were invited to a discussion with certain persons,
both clerics and laymen. So that the argument would not drag on too
long, a certain priest, Raymond of Deventer,4 a man, indeed, devout
and God-fearing, noble by birth, nobler in conduct, was chosen by both
parties as a judge.
4. So when the day set for the debate arrived and both parties
assembled, together with many other clerics and laymen, they [the
Waldenses] were called to account by the true Catholics for certain
matters on which their views were erroneous. As they replied to each
charge, the argument was pursued at length, now by one side, now by
the other, and many biblical texts were advanced by each party. When
he had heard the statements of both sides, the afore-mentioned judge
rendered a definitive verdict in writing and pronounced the Waldenses
heretics on the points of which they had been accused.
5. In the present little tract we describe the texts and arguments by
which they defended their stand and the reply to them by us Catholics,
with the scriptural texts by which the Catholic faith was defended; and
we add certain other passages against other heresies. All this we have
done particularly to instruct or encourage some of the clergy, who,
either because they are burdened by inexperience or for want of books,
become an offense and a scandal to the faithful under their charge by
their failure to stand against the enemies of the truth; for they neither
confirm [their parishioners] in the Catholic faith nor refresh them with
the nourishment of the Holy Scriptures, wherefore they languish like
starvelings on the journey through this world, deprived of spiritual
powers and unable to find their way again to the homeland, that is, to
paradise. This, indeed, is the real cause of the greater evil we have
described: that the ravening wolves, to wit, the demon-heretics and
tyrants, are not being driven out of the folds of Christ’s sheep either by
the word of preaching or by the rod of discipline or strictness.
6. Wherefore, may it please [such clerics] to accept from our humble
self the little gift of this tract. Let them commit the texts of the Holy
Fathers to memory, so that by God’s mercy they may have invincible
weapons against the masters of darkness, against the spinners of lies,
against the worshipers of perverse dogmas who are the demon-heretics,
to the end that, guided by the grace of God, they may win triumph over
34. Catholics Debate Waldenses 213
them and may be worthy to receive from the Highest Shepherd “a
never-fading crown of glory”5 for the governance and instruction of
those under their charge.

Chapter I: This opposes their statement that no obedience is owed

to the supreme pontiff or to other prelates....
Chapter II: This treats of the authority of prelates: that deference and
obedience are owed to them....
Chapter III: Against those who disparage the holders of the cure
of souls....
Chapter IV: Refutes the proposition that all persons, even laymen,
may preach: What they may say in this regard and what we may say
against them....
Chapter V: That it is not permissible for them to minister the word
of God to the faithful....
Chapter VI: An answer to the argument in which they say with the
Apostle, “We ought to obey God rather than men”;6 also there are
some other matters....
Chapter VII: In this are described the persons whom they chiefly
seduce, and whom they do not....
Chapter VIII: Against the assertion that women may preach....
Chapter IX: Against their statement that alms, fasting, the ceremony
of the Mass, or other prayers of the living are of no profit to the faithful
who have died... .7
Chapter X: Against those who deny that there is purgatorial fire and
who say that souls released from the flesh go directly to heaven or
hell... .8
Chapter XI: Against those persons who say that before the Last
Judgment those souls of the dead go neither to heaven nor to hell but
remain in other places of refuge... .9
Chapter XII: Against those who refuse to pray in a church and who
declare that a church does not deserve that name. Here it is proved that
a church is properly so named, that one should pray therein, and that
it should be regarded with the greatest veneration. Here also is the
answer to a particular argument of those heretics, in which, relying
on the words of the Blessed Stephen, they say that “the Most High
dwelleth not in houses made by hands,”10 and therefore not in a
church... ,u
214 Heresy in Southern France

35. Alan of Lille: A Scholar’s Attack on Heretics

As the twelfth century drew to a close, Languedoc was the scene of religious
ferment and discord.1 The Cathars attracted sympathetic attention and
adherents from every rank of society; the Poor of Lyons were increasing in
number as they tapped the same wells of reformist and evangelistic piety
from which predecessors such as Henry of Le Mans and his adherents had
drawn. Catholic spokesmen slowly began to do what they might to curb both
groups of dissidents and, in the very last years of the century, moves were
undertaken in a papal program which was to lead first to a campaign of
evangelization to win back the disaffected and then to crusade and repression
to wipe out the adamant enemies of the faith.
A literary monument of the religious controversy at the end of the twelfth
century is the work of Alan of Lille. Poet, philosopher, theologian, teacher,
one of the leading literary and academic figures of his day, he won such
admiring epithets as “the Great” and “the Universal Doctor” from contem¬
poraries. Yet precise knowledge of his life is lacking. He was born in Lille,
perhaps in 1128, studied perhaps at Chartres, taught at Paris. Legend has
him disputing against heretics at Rome before the pope, and it has been
suggested that he was a member of a preaching mission against the Cathars,
but when and where is not known. He entered the Cistercian order and for
some time taught at Montpellier. His poems, De planctu naturae (ca. 1160-
1170) and Anticlaudianus (1183-1184), were very popular;2 so too his
theological writings, and not least among the latter, to judge from the num¬
ber of surviving manuscripts,3 his four-part treatise in defense of the Chris¬
tian faith against heretics (Cathars),4 Waldenses, Jews, and infidels. Alan
died in 1203.«
The De fide catholica (or, as it is usually entitled in the manuscripts,
Quadripartita editio contra hereticos, Waldenses, Judeos, et paganos) was
written after 1179 and before 1202, probably in the last decade of the cen¬
tury.6 Only the first two of its four books are in point here. The style and
organization throughout is “scholastic”: First, there is a methodical presen¬
tation of the heretical position with its scriptural basis and supporting rational
arguments. These are then examined, reinterpreted, and rebutted. Last, the
soundness of orthodox doctrine is demonstrated. Alan’s knowledge about
Cathars and Waldenses may have been partly based on personal encounters,
but there is no hint of that in his writing. His approach is primarily aca¬
demic; his interest chiefly in their theology, although this does not bar the
use on occasion of vigorous invective against their practices. His display of
scriptural erudition is impressive; even more interesting is his development
of logical and philosophical arguments, with citations from classical authors
as well as from the Church Fathers.7
The most recent biography of Alan is Guy Raynaud de Lage’s A lain de
Lille, poete du XW siecle. There is no adequate edition of the De fide
catholica; that from which we translate is the only one which brings all four
35. Alan of Lille’s Attack 215
books together. From it are excerpted the introductory first chapter and
three others which present certain Catharist tenets, together with one, heavily
laden with diatribe, on the Waldenses.
The following translation comes from Alani de Insulis De fide catholica
contra haereticos sui temporis i.i,iii,ix; n.i, in Migne, Patrologia latina, CCX,
307-9, 316, 377-80.

1190-1202
Book I
Chapter 1: A Comparison of Pagans and Christians in Physical
and Spiritual Activity
As we read in the books of the ancients that the chiefs and princes of
the pagans, pursuing human fame, nobly slew monsters of various sorts,
as Hercules slew Antaeus, Theseus the Minotaur, Jason the fire¬
breathing bull, Meleager the enormous boar, Coroebus the Stygian
monster, Perseus the sea-monster, even so we read that noble princes
of Holy Church with spiritual weapons overcame the monsters of various
heresies and heretics. But just as Antaeus became more powerful by
recovering strength from the earth, and the hydra, on loss of its heads,
became more endowed therewith, so also when old former heresies were
rooted out, they sprouted anew. Yet there is a great difference here:
The strength of Antaeus came to its end, the hydra was totally destroyed;
but among moderns there are not those who are able to resist renewed
heresies, to uproot those which sprout anew. Yet I, least among the
sons of Jesse chosen from later generations, will strive to kill Goliath
with his own sword and put to death the Egyptian who taunts the
Hebrews.

Chapter II: The Heretics, Relying on Certain Texts, Say There Are
Two Principles of Things
The heretics of our time say that there are two principles of things,
the principle of light and the principle of darkness.
The principle of light, they say, is God, from whom are spiritual
things, to wit, souls and angels. The principle of darkness, Lucifer, is
he from whom are temporal things. They seek, moreover, to prove this
by texts and rational arguments. By texts thus: “A good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.”8
Therefore, since God is the highest good, evils are not from Him; but
since evils exist, and not from God himself, they come, therefore, from
216 Heresy in Southern France

something other than God. Therefore, since God is the principle of

good, there is another, the principle of evil.
Also, at the beginning of Genesis, one reads that “darkness was
upon the face of the deep.”9 Thus the world had its beginning in dark¬
ness. Therefore, the creator of the world was the principle of darkness,
and the founder of the world, who initiated its creation from darkness,
was evil.
Also, Christ says in the Gospel, “The prince of this world cometh
and in me he hath not anything.”10 There He gives Lucifer rather than
himself the name of prince of the world, so Lucifer, not Christ, was
founder of the world. Elsewhere is the saying, “No man can serve two
masters,” that is, “God and mammon.”11 There Christ refers to himself
and to the devil as masters (domini). Now Christ is called lord (dominus)
only by reason of creation; therefore the devil is called lord also for
reason of creation. Also, He says, “You are of your father the devil.”12
Also, the Apostle: “It is no more I that do it but what dwelteth in
me” (that is, in my flesh)—“sin.”18 If sin dwells in the flesh and is of
the flesh, and if the flesh cannot exist without sin, the flesh is evil, and
thus not from God. I feel “another law in my members, fighting against
the law of my mind and captivating me in the law of sin, that is, in my
members.”14 Now if the law of the flesh is the law of sin and death, the
flesh is perceived to be evil and consequently not from God. Also, the
Apostle says: “The flesh fights against the spirit and the spirit against
the flesh.”15 If the flesh is always in opposition to the intellect,16 the
flesh is evil and from evil.

Chapter III: The Heretics, Relying on Certain Rational Arguments,

Say That There Are Two Principles of Things
The heretics confirm their opinion also by these rational arguments.
If God made these visible things, either He could make them incor¬
ruptible or not. If He could not, He was weak; if He could do so and
refused, He was malevolent. Also, if a cause is immutable, its effect will
be immutable. But it is established that corporeal things are subject to
change. Therefore, their cause is mutable. Also, since many things in the
world occur by chance, they do not appear to be done by divine com¬
mand. Also, since the flesh of man is given generation in and by sin, it
seems not to be from the principle of good. Also, there are certain
creatures, such as serpents, flies, and spiders, which yield nothing useful
35. Alan of Lille’s Attack 217

but produce manifold damage. Therefore, since they are destined for
evil, not for good, they are from evil, not from good....

Chapter IX: The Contention of Certain Heretics Who Say That

There Are No Souls in Human Bodies Other than the Apostate
Angels Who Fell from Heaven
Moreover, certain of the aforesaid heretics, seeking aid for their
ignorance, deny that souls are created every day and infused into
bodies. They declare that alone the apostate angels who fell from
heaven are infused into human bodies by God’s permission, to the end
that they may be able to do penance therein. They also say of these
that one spirit may be infused successively into eight bodies, so that if
penance is not completed in one, it may be done in another. Furthermore,
they say that the spirit of man is nothing other than an apostate angel
and that there are no spirits in heaven because all that were in heaven
fell with Lucifer. This these persons seek to prove by the text, “I was
not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.”17
They mean by “the house of Israel” the assembly of angels who were
created in heaven so that they might behold God, but who fell away
through sin. They also quote another text, “No man hath ascended into
heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in
heaven.”18...

Book II: Against the Waldenses

Chapter I: It Is Demonstrated from Texts and by Rational Argu¬
ments That No One Should Preach Unless He Is Sent by a Prelate
His Superior
There are certain heretics who pretend that they are righteous, al¬
though they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. In the Gospel the Lord said
of them, “Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of
sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”19 They are called
Waldenses after their heresiarch, who was named Waldes. He, by the
prompting of his own spirit, not sent by God, invented a new sect in
that, without authority from a prelate, without divine inspiration, with¬
out knowledge, without learning, he presumed to preach; a philosopher
without thought, a prophet without vision, an apostle without a mission,
a teacher without a tutor.20 His disciples, or rather deceivers,21 seduce
the simple folk in various regions of the world, divert them from rather
218 Heresy in Southern France

than convert them to the truth. They dare to preach to fill their bellies
rather than their minds and, because they do not wish to work with
their own hands to obtain food, they make the evil choice of living
without employment, preaching falsities so that they may buy food,
since Paul says, “He who does not labor, neither let him eat.”22 In the
first place, these persons proceed against divine authority and against
the proclamation of Holy Writ because they preach, being sent neither
by a superior nor by God; for they neither prove that they are sent by
God in their works nor confirm it by miracles. A mission from God is
both proved by good works and confirmed by miracles. Also, we do not
read that any holy person preached unless he was sent. For Christ was
sent by the Father and came to preach only at God’s good pleasure. This
is shown likewise by the prophets and the apostles and those whom they
delegated. We read that John was sent by God.28 And the Lord said to
Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew
thee and before thou earnest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee
and made thee a prophet unto the nations.”24 Amos says that he was
sent by God when he was a shepherd.2* And the Holy Spirit is presented
in Malachi, speaking thus to the Father about John, “Behold, I send my
angel before your face.”2® Isaiah also, we read, was sent by God.27 Why
enumerate every single instance? We read that all the prophets of the
Old Testament were sent by God. Likewise, Christ’s disciples are called
apostles as though, beyond others, they were sent; in like manner those
whom they delegated were sent. By the fact that Christ sent the
apostles and others to preach is signified that lesser persons in the
Church of God ought not to preach unless they are sent by superiors.
Since orders in the Church of God are assigned by superior officials, so
also the function of preaching, because it is the most important in the
Church. Just as no one should be promoted to the priesthood except in
the way that Aaron was, that is, no one should take it upon himself, so
no one ought to undertake the functions of a preacher on his own
authority. Hence Korah and his associates, as we read in Numbers,28
perished by fire because he usurped another’s function. We read also in
the fourth book of Kings that Uzziah the king was afflicted with leprosy
because he took upon himself the function of making sacrifices.2*
Similarly, spiritual leprosy, meaning mortal sin, afflicts him who usurps
for himself the office of preaching. For the Apostle says to the Romans,
“How shall they preach unless they be sent?”80—for they are not true
35. Alan of Lille’s Attack 219
apostles unless they are sent. Also, in the second Epistle to the Corin¬
thians he reproves pseudopreachers.31 He himself was indeed sent by
his superior, that is, by Christ, for he also says to the Romans, speaking
of Christ, “By whom we have received grace and apostleship.”32 Also,
how will unlettered persons preach who do not understand the Scrip¬
tures? Will not their preaching result rather in the ruin of many than in
their resurrection? Again, how may they be literate who have never
learned their letters? Now we see that persons, such as many Cistercians,
holier than they and who know the Holy Scriptures, do not preach,
indubitably because they were not sent. If it is a dangerous thing for
wise and holy men to preach, it is most dangerous for the uneducated
who do not know what should be preached; to whom, how, when, and
where33 there should be preaching. These persons resist the Apostle in
that they have women with them and have them preach in the gatherings
of the faithful, although the Apostle says in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians: “Let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not
permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if
they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.”34
Also, the Apostle in the first Epistle to Timothy, “Let the woman learn
in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to
use authority over the man.”35 The Apostle also speaks of these
heretics in the second Epistle to Timothy: “Know also this, that in the
last days shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves,
covetus, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrate¬
ful, wicked, without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent,
unmerciful, without kindness, traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers
of pleasures more than of God, having an appearance indeed of god¬
liness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. For of these
sort are they who creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden
with sins, who are led away with divers desires, ever learning, and
never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.”3* All of these words fit
the Waldenses especially, who are haughty; slanderers of the prelates
of the Church; proud, in boasting of their own works; blasphemers of
God through heresy; disobedient to their real and their spiritual parents,
because they deny obedience to their prelates; wicked, because they
slay their own and others’ souls with perverse doctrines; without affec¬
tion for anyone; without peace, disturbing others; slanderers, because
they impute faults to others; incontinent, moreover, for in their as-
220 Heresy in Southern France

semblies they indulge in gluttony and devote themselves to excesses, as

those who have ceased to consort with them testify; unmerciful in
raising accusations; without kindness, because they seek to subvert
others; traitors, because they reveal the secrets of others; puffed up,
swollen in heart, shameless and insolent in unhallowed worship; having
an appearance, indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof*
because they falsely put on an external piety, yet within are ravening
wolves; blind men who understand not what they speak nor what they
do; lovers of pleasures, putting carnal delights before the spiritual.
These are they who creep into the houses of widows and lead them
astray. They are the ones who ever labor in their schools at learning
more, but never attain knowledge of the truth.37

36. The Reconciliation of a Group of Waldenses

to the Church
Three documents grouped here illustrate the complexities of the situation
in the early thirteenth century, when Waldenses, Cathars, and Catholics
were engaged in controversy and small parties from the first-named came
back to the Church, with the intention of continuing under its aegis the
attack on the Cathars in which they were already engaged. Their conversion
was a result of the Cistercian preaching mission in Languedoc after 1204,
which Bishop Diego of Osma and Dominic of Caleruega, his companion,
had joined in 1206.1 In a public debate at Pamiers in August, 1207, Bishop
Diego and his colleagues overcame the arguments of Waldensian spokesmen,
of whom some, according to the chronicler William of Puylaurens, “ap¬
proached the Apostolic See and received penance. I have heard that they were
given permission to live under a rule. Durand of Huesca was foremost
(prior) among them. He wrote certain works against the heretics.2 These
persons lived thus, indeed, in one part of Catalonia for several years but
thereafter, little by little, they disappeared.” 3
Durand of Huesca and four companions had, indeed, gone to the papal
see to make their submission. In December, 1208, Innocent III accepted
from them a profession of faith derived directly from that made by Waldes
in Lyons (No. 32), now amended so that it not only incorporated the tradi¬
tional doctrine of the Church but repudiated the errors commonly charged
against the Waldenses. To it was joined the proposal for a new religious
society to be called the Poor Catholics, also inspired by Waldes’s words
but going beyond them. Under papal guidance, the Poor Catholics planned
three levels of action against heresy—disputation with heretics, religious
education of their own members, and preaching to the people at large—
while retaining certain Waldensian characteristics which did not conflict
36. Waldenses Reconciled to Church 221

with the standards of the Church.4 The approval of Innocent III was
*

announced in a letter of December 18, 1208 (see part A).

Durand and his friends set to work promptly. By April, 1209, they had
made some recruits in Milan, and Durand informed the pope that one
hundred more potential converts were at hand.5 They came from the ranks
of the Poor Lombards, Italian Waldenses who had broken away from the
Poor of Lyons in 1205.6 Now, after further internal dissension, some of
them wished to return to the Church.7 The action in the case of these hun¬
dred converts is not known, but in 1210, under the leadership of one Bernard
Prim,8 some former Poor Lombards were received into the Church, as the
Poor Catholics had been, and took as their new name “the Reconciled
Poor.”9 But at the same time complaints were reaching the pope that the
behavior of the Poor Catholics raised doubts about the sincerity of their con¬
version. The letter in which Innocent ordered Durand to correct the situation
shows the nature of these suspicions; it is translated as part B, below.
Furthermore, a new profession of faith was drafted in 1210. It included
specific disavowal of the charges that were being made against the Poor
Catholics: that they, like the Waldenses denied the right of secular justice
to impose the death penalty and that they did not show proper deference
to the Catholic clergy.10
For some years the Poor Catholics had a certain measure of success. In
1212, for example, a group of penitents in the diocese of Elne put them¬
selves under the spiritual guidance of the Poor Catholics, with the intention
of founding a hospice for the sick, poor, and homeless; the fate of the
venture is not known.11 But the origins of the society continued to arouse
suspicion, the secular clergy clearly resented them, and despite the support
of Innocent III, they led a precarious existence.12 By 1247 they had been
forbidden to preach in Narbonne, and soon after the middle of the century
both they and the Reconciled Poor (who probably preceded them in this)
had been merged with or put under the control of other religious orders.13
The confusion created by papal approval of these preaching societies of
former heretics, at the very moment when the two great mendicant orders
founded by St. Francis and St. Dominic were taking shape, is illustrated by
the third document, translated as part C. The author of the chronicle from
which it comes was Burchard, provost of the Premonstratensian monastery
of Ursberg in Germany from 1215 until his death, probably in 1231. Much
Aura
(d. 1125), is borrowed from others, but the excerpt we translate here was
based on Burchard’s personal experience. Burchard made two trips to Rome,
in 1198 and 1210. We do not know which one involved his encounter with
the groups he calls the Poor of Lyons and the Humiliati, for he did not
record his experience until 1229 or 1230, and it is possible that he confused
and combined his recollections of both trips.14
On the Poor Catholics, see Johann B. Pierron, Die katholischen Armen,
and, with special reference to their polemical activity and the career of
222 Heresy in Southern France
Durand of Huesca, Thouzellier, Catharisme et Valdeisme.
In part A of the following, the additions to the earlier profession made
by Waldes are italicized. The translations in parts A and B are from
Innocenti III romani pontificis Regestorum sive epistolarum libri XV xi.196,
and xii.69, in Migne, Patrologia latina, CCXV, 1510-13, and CCXVI, 75-77.
Part C is translated from Die Chronik des Propstes Burchard von Ursberg,
ed. by Oswald Holder-Egger and Bernard von Simson (Scriptores rerum
Germanicarum in usum scholarum [Hanover and Leipzig, 1916]), pp. 107-8,
by permission of Hansche Buchhandlung and the Monumenta Germaniae
Historica.

A. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOCIETY

OF POOR CATHOLICS

December 18, 1208

To the archbishop and suffragans of the Church of Tarragona.15
In imitation of Him who is the God, not of discord but of peace,
who desires that all men shall be saved and come to the knowledge of
truth, we received with fatherly kindness our beloved sons Durand of
Huesca and his companions when they came to the Apostolic See and
we have acquired full understanding of the matters which they charged
themselves to explain to us on their own behalf as well as for their
brethren. We know, therefore, from the things which they said to us
about the articles of faith and the sacraments of the Church when they
were carefully examined, that they are versed in the orthodox faith and
that they build upon Catholic truth. Moreover, for greater assurance,
bringing forth the Gospels and placing the text of their confession
thereon, we received this oath from them:
“I (it begins), Durand of Huesca, in your consecrated hands, Most
High Pontiff, Lord Innocent, invoke God as my soul’s witness that I
absolutely and truly believe what is contained in this document in all
things, and I will never believe the contrary; but I will resist with all my
might those who do believe contrary to this. To you, truly, as successor
to the Blessed Apostle Peter, to archbishops, bishops, and other prelates
in whose dioceses or parishes I may dwell, I tender obedience and
reverence, as deserved as it is devout.”
The text of the confession follows:
“Let it be known to all the faithful that I, Durand of Huesca, and J.,
and E., and B.,16 and all our brethren, believe in heart, perceive through
faith, confess in speech, mid in unequivocal words affirm that the
36. Waldenses Reconciled to Church 223
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, one God, the
whole Trinity, the same in essence and substance, coeternal and omnip¬
otent, and that each person of the Trinity is fully God, as is expressed
in the creeds, the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian
Creed. We believe in heart and confess in words that the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit of whom we testify, is creator, maker, governor,
and disposer of all things, corporeal and spiritual, visible and invisible.
We believe that the author of the New and Old Testaments is one and
the same God who, existing in the Trinity, as we have said, created
everything out of nothing. We believe that John the Baptist, holy and
righteous, was sent by Him and was filled with the Holy Spirit in his
mother’s womb.
We believe in heart and confess in words that the incarnation of
divinity came to pass not in the Father or in the Holy Spirit but only in
the Son, so that He who in divinity was the Son of God the Father, true
God from the Father, was in humanity the son of man, true man from
his mother, having true flesh from the womb of his mother and a rational
human soul, of both natures at one and the same time, that is, God and
man, one person, one son, one Christ, one God with the Father and the
Holy Spirit, author and ruler of all. Bom of the Virgin Mary by true
birth of the flesh, He ate and drank, slept and rested when wearied by
travel, suffered with true suffering of His flesh, died in a true death of
His body, and rose again with true resurrection of His flesh and true
restoration of His soul to the body;17 in that flesh He afterward ate and
drank, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and in
it shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
We believe in heart and confess by mouth that there is one Church,
not that of heretics, but holy, Roman, catholic, and apostolic, outside
of which, we believe, no one can be saved. We do not in any way reject
the sacraments which are celebrated in it with the aid of the inestimable
and invisible power of the Holy Spirit, even though they be ministered
by a sinful priest, as long as the Church accepts him. Nor do we dis¬
parage the ecclesiastical offices or benedictions celebrated by such a
one, but with devout mind we embrace them as if performed by the most
righteous, for the wickedness of a bishop or of a priest has no harmful
effect upon the baptism of children, nor on the celebration of the
Eucharist, nor on the performance of other ecclesiastical offices for
those in their charge. We approve, therefore, of the baptism of infants,
224 Heresy in Southern France

whom we confess and believe to be saved if they shall die after baptism
before they commit sin. We believe that in baptism all sins are remitted,
that original inherited sin as well as those which are committed by one’s
own will. We hold that confirmation performed by a bishop, that is,
by the imposition of hands, is holy and worthy of reverent acceptance.
We firmly and indisputably with pure heart believe and affirm in un¬
equivocal, faithful words that the sacrifice, that is, the bread and wine,
is, after consecration, the true body and true blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ; in this, we believe, nothing more is accomplished by a good
priest, nothing less by an evil one, for it is effected not by the merit of
the consecrant but by the word of the Creator and in the power of the
Holy Spirit. Hence, we firmly believe and confess that no one, however
worthy, religious, holy, and prudent he may be, can or ought to con¬
secrate the Eucharist or perform the sacrifice of the altar unless he is a
priest regularly ordained by a visible and tangible bishop. To this office
there are, we believe, three things necessary: a certain person, the priest
himself, duly established in that office by a bishop, as we have already
said; those solemn words which are set forth by the Holy Fathers in the
Canon; and the faithful purpose of him who offers them. And con¬
sequently, we firmly believe and confess that whosoever believes and
expresses himself as qualified to perform the sacrament of the Eucharist
without the preceding episcopal ordination, as we have said, is a heretic,
a participant and partner in the damnation of Korah and his accom¬
plices, and ought to be cut off from the whole Holy Roman Church.
We believe that forgiveness is granted by God to truly penitent
sinners and most willingly will we consort with them. We venerate the
anointing of the sick with consecrated oil. We do not deny that carnal
marriage may be contracted as the Apostle says; we utterly forbid that
those united in lawful fashion shall separate. We believe and confess
that a man united with his wife may be saved and we do not even
condemn a second or later marriage. We put no reproach at all upon
the eating of meat.
We believe preaching to be necessary and most praiseworthy but we
believe it is to be exercised by the authority or license of the highest
pontiff or by permission of prelates. In all places, indeed, where manifest
heretics abide, where they forsake and blaspheme God and the faith of
the Holy Roman Church, we believe that we should confound them by
disputation and exhortation in all ways according to God, as adversaries
36. Waldenses Reconciled to Church 225
of Christ and the Church, and with bold countenance oppose them with
the word of the Lord, even unto death. We humbly praise and faithfully
venerate the ecclesiastical orders and all that is appointed to be read or
sung as holy in the Holy Roman Church. We believe that the devil was
made evil not by nature but by his will. We believe in heart and confess
in words the resurrection of this flesh which we bear and no other. We
firmly believe and affirm that the judgment by Jesus Christ is still to
come, and that each person will receive either punishment or reward
for those things committed in this flesh which we bear. We believe that
alms, the Mass, and other good works can benefit the faithful who have
died. We believe and confess that persons remaining in the world and
owning their own goods, giving alms and doing other good works out
of their own, and observing the commandments of the Lord may be
saved. We believe that by the Lord’s command clerics ought to receive
tithes, first fruits, and oblations.”
Verily, since not only true faith but good performance is requisite for
salvation, for even as it is impossible to please God without faith, so
faith without works is dead,18 we have caused a record to be made in
these pages of the proposal for their way of life, the content of which
follows.
“To the honor of God and His Catholic Church and for the salvation
of our souls, we have resolved to believe in heart and confess in words
the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate in its entirety, maintaining our¬
selves under the direction and governance of the Roman pontiff. We
have renounced the world; whatever we may come to have we shall
bestow upon the poor according to the Lord’s commandment. We have
resolved to be poor in such fashion that we shall take no thought for
the morrow, nor shall we accept gold or silver, or anything of that sort
from anyone, beyond food and clothing sufficient for the day. Our
resolve is to follow the precepts of the Gospel as commands,19 devoting
ourselves to prayer according to the seven canonical horns, saying the
Lord’s Prayer fifteen times, followed by the Apostle’s Creed, the
Miserere, and other prayers. Inasmuch as most of us are clerics and
almost all are educated, we are resolved to devote ourselves to study,
exhortation, teaching, and disputation against all sects of error. Dispu¬
tations, however, are to be conducted by the more learned brethren,
proved in the Catholic faith and instructed in the law of the Lord, so
that enemies of the Catholic and apostolic faith are confounded.
226 Heresy in Southern France
Through especially worthy persons, well versed in the law of the Lord
and in the sentences of the Fathers, we propose to set forth the word
of the Lord in our schools to our brethren and friends. With license
from and due veneration for prelates, the qualified brethren, learned in
the sacred page, who may be powerful in sound doctrine, will reprove
sinful folk and by every means draw them to the faith and into the
bosom of the Holy Roman Church. We are resolved that we will in¬
violably preserve unbroken virginity and chastity and will observe two
Lents and the fasts instituted each year in accordance with ecclesiastical
rule. We have elected to wear the modest religious garb to which we are
accustomed, the shoes being cut away at the top and shaped in a special
and distinct style, so that we will openly and clearly be recognized as
separated in body as in heart from the Poor of Lyons,20 now and for¬
ever more, unless they become reconciled to Catholic unity. We will
receive the Church’s sacraments from bishops and priests in whose
dioceses and parishes we reside, to whom we shall proffer due obedience
and reverence. If, indeed, any laymen express a desire to accept our
guidance, we shall take care that apart from those qualified to exhort
and to dispute against heretics, they shall abide together religiously and
in due order, disposing their affairs in justice and mercy, subsisting by
the work of their hands, giving the tithes, first fruits, and oblations due
to the Church.”
We, therefore, having taken counsel with our brethren, order by
apostolic letter that if you shall receive a similar vow from other
brothers, you shall reconcile them to ecclesiastical unity by an oath like
this, and you shall make it known by proclamation and in other ways
that they are truly Catholic and rightly faithful, keeping them under
God free from all scandal and infamy; and you shall mercifully aid
them with testimonial letters and other assistance, for the sake of God.
Given at die Lateran, December 18, 1208, in the eleventh year of
our pontificate.

B. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POOR CATHOLICS

July 5, 1209
To Durand of Huesca and his brethren, who were restored to eccle¬
siastical unity.
We have received a serious charge against you from our brethren,
the archbishop of Narbonne and the bishops of B6ziers, Uzes, Nimes,
36. Waldenses Reconciled to Church 227
and Carcassonne, to the effect that you, presuming more than is proper
on the favor of our good will, grow quite insolent toward them; likewise,
that before their eyes you brought some Waldenses, heretics who were
not yet restored to ecclesiastical unity, into a church, with the result that
they were present with you at the consecration of the body of the Lord
and you acted together with them in all things. They charge that you
keep in your company certain monks who have left their monasteries
and others who have abandoned their vocation. They allege that you
have in no way at all changed the garb denoting that superstition which
formerly caused scandal among Catholics. Furthermore, on account of
your doctrinal instruction, which you deliver to your brethren and
friends in your schools, many have been drawn away from the Church,
not seeking to hear divine offices or sacerdotal preaching therein.
Indeed, even the clergy among your associates, who are organized in
sacred orders, do not attend the divine office according to canonical
regulations. And, above all, some of you assert that no secular authority
can, without mortal sin, impose a judgment of blood.
Now, when we heard this, we were touched to the heart with sorrow,
fearing no little that what we had designed for good should turn to
harm. Therefore, lest the most recent error make the earlier one worse,
we have directed that your zeal be solicited and admonished, prescribing
by apostolic letter that you recall the divine law according to which one
who has been expelled from the town for the disease of leprosy be not
readmitted except by decision of a priest.21 Do you carefully shun those
persons who, for the disease of heretical depravity, are cut off from the
bosom of the Church until they may be recalled to her by decision of
pontifical authority, lest you bring evangelical and apostolic judgment
into contempt by acting otherwise... ,22 Although those who act by the
spirit of God are not under the Law,23 for where the spirit of God is,
there is liberty,24 do not allow into your company apostates whom men
hold to be unworthy, who lightly withdraw from their way of life. Do
not keep those whom you have admitted but return them to their pre¬
lates so that they may remain in that vocation to which they were
called.... And because the kingdom of God is not in outer garb but
within,25 take care to still the scandal which grows more serious because
of the former garb which you still keep. Alter this habit as you promised
us to do, changing it in such a way that you show yourselves also set
apart from heretics in outer raiment as you are within.... Being un-
228 Heresy in Southern France

willing to destroy the work of God for the sake of footwear, be mindful
of what the same apostle [Paul] said: “For if because of thy meat thy
brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy
not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.”26 ... Therefore, we
admonish, we advise, we exhort those of you who have not yet adopted
this fashion or those who shall be associated with you in the future not
to bind themselves to the custom of wearing sandals open at the top
nor to wear such footgear, so that thus scandal may entirely disappear.
Wisely warn your friends and brothers who come together to hear your
words, effectively persuade them to attend churches often and to hear
the word of God therein, especially on the appointed days, so that they
do not show contempt for the holy temple or the priestly office, both of
which the faithful should venerate with pious devotion.... Let not,
therefore, your clerics refuse to celebrate the daily and nocturnal hours
in the churches according to canonical practice, lest they, indeed, come
to be violaters of the clerical order. This, which is an error, let no one
of you presume to assert: that the secular power cannot carry out
judgment of blood without mortal sin, for the law, not the judge, puts
to death so long as one acts to impose punishment, not in hatred, not
rashly, but with counsel.... That you may properly and without suspicion
wield against heretics the spiritual sword which is the word of God, we
desire and command that you join yourselves to other Catholic preachers
in the office of preaching against the foxes of any kind who seek to
destroy the vines of the Lord.. . ,27 So let preachers already proved in
sound doctrine be joined to you who were recently converted from
error to truth, so that they with you and you with them, wholly free
from suspicion, may sow the word of God while humbly rendering
obedience and reverence to archbishops, bishops, and other prelates.
Thus you may erect the structure of good works upon the foundation
of humility, imitating the teaching of Him who said of himself, “Learn
of me, because I am meek and humble of heart.”28
Given at Viterbo, July 5, 1209, in the twelfth year [of our pontifi¬
cate].29

C. WALDENSES, HUMILIATI, AND FRIARS MINOR

1210-1216
At this time, as the world was growing old, there arose in the Church,
whose youth is renewed like the eagle’s,30 two religious orders which
36. Waldenses Reconciled to Church 229
were also confirmed by the Apostolic See, to wit, the Friars Minor and
the Preachers. The reason for this approval may have been the persist¬
ence of two sects which had previously appeared in Italy and which
called themselves, respectively, the Humiliati31 and the Poor of Lyons.
A former pope, Lucius [III], listed these among heretics, chiefly
because unsound doctrines and practices were observed among them
and because, in secret sermons which they usually delivered in hidden
places, they heaped scorn on the Chinch of God and the priesthood. We
saw at the time several of those who were called the Poor of Lyons, with
a certain one of their leaders named Bernard, I believe, at the Apostolic
See. They were seeking to have their sect confirmed and endowed with
privileges by the pope. Indeed, they traveled about through villages and
towns, insisting that they followed the apostolic life, desiring neither
possessions nor fixed abode. But the lord pope accused them of certain
unsound practices in their way of life, to wit, that they cut away the
tops of their shoes and so walked about as if barefooted; moreover,
although they wore hoods after the manner of a religious order, they
trimmed their hair only in the fashion of laymen. This also seemed
reprehensible in respect of them, that men and women traveled the
roads together, often lodged together in the same house, and, it was
said, sometimes slept together in the same bed. All this they claimed to
have received from the apostles.
But, in their stead, the lord pope did authorize certain others who
were becoming known under the name of “the Lesser Poor” (Pauperes
minores). These rejected the unsound and scandalous practices de¬
scribed above, but traveled completely barefoot both summer and
winter and accepted neither money nor anything else except food for
the day or sometimes a needed garment which someone might give them
of his own volition, for they asked nothing of anyone. But subsequently,
after reflecting that not infrequently a name for too much humility
induces boastfulness and that in the name of poverty (since many bore
it deceitfully) they were the more vainly boasting in the eyes of the Lord,
this group chose to be called Friars Minor (minores fratres) rather than
Lesser Poor, and to render obedience to the Apostolic See in all things.33
The others, that is to say, the Preachers, are considered to be suc¬
cessors to the Humiliati. Now the Humiliati, although they had no
authorization or permission from prelates, thrust their sickle into the
harvest of others,33 preached to the people and often busied themselves
230 Heresy in Southern France

with ordering their lives, hearing confessions, and disparaging the

ministry of the priesthood. Out of a desire to rectify this situation, the
lord pope established and confirmed the Order of Preachers. The
former, who were indeed simple and unlearned folk, worked with their
hands while preaching, and received their support from those who
believed in them. The Preachers, on the other hand, put great emphasis
upon study and reading of Holy Writ, worked only at copying books
and most attentively hearing them expounded by their masters, so that
they might be prepared to go forth with bow and arrows and “all the
armor of valiant men stand in defense of Holy Mother Church
go up against the enemy” and to place themselves as a “wall for the
house of Israel While they strengthen the faith, they train and
develop virtues and good habits, teach and extol the laws of the Church,
reprove and correct the sins and depravities of men. Nevertheless, they
are obedient in all things to the Apostolic See, from which they derive
especial authority.

37. An Exposure of the Albigensian and

Waldensian Heresies
The statement here translated enumerates the tenets of the Albigenses much
as the manifesto of Bonacursus (No. 25) had done for the Italian Cathars,
but this has more details and also includes some comments on the Waldenses.
The sole manuscript in which it is found also contains a copy of the Contra
haereticos of Ermengaud of Beziers, companion of Durand of Huesca 1—a
fact which, combined with the assertion, in the text, of the author’s familiarity
with Waldenses, led the editor to suggest that Ermengaud might have written
this manifesto. Furthermore, it is not unlikely that it was one of the sources
used by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, writing about 1213 (see No. 38). As to
the date, Dondaine contented himself with the suggestion that this statement
was perhaps as old as that of Bonacursus.2 However, because of the author’s
concluding remarks on the need to use force against the heretics, we tenta¬
tively suggest a date nearer the beginning of the Albigensian Crusade.
On the situation in Languedoc at the beginning of the thirteenth century,
in addition to the works cited in the introduction to Number 28, see these
articles by Yves Dossat: “Cathares et Vaudois k la veille de la croisade
albigeoise,” Revue historique et lit teraire de Languedoc, II (1945), 390-97,
and III (1946), 70-83; “Le Clerge meridional a la veille de la croisade
albigeoise,” Revue historique et litteraire de Languedoc, I (1944), 263-78;
“Le Comte de Toulouse et la f6odalite languedocienne a la veille de la
croisade albigeoise,” Revue de Tarn, IX (1943), 75-90; “La Societe meri-
37. Albigenses and Waldenses 231
dionale a la veille de la croisade albigeoise,” Revue historique et litteraire
de Languedoc, I (1944), 66-87. See also Delaruelle, “Le Catharisme en
Languedoc,” Annales du Midi, LXXII (1960), 149-67.
The translation is made from the text printed in Antoine Dondaine,
“Durand de Huesca et la pol£mique anti-cathare,” Archivum fratrum prae-
dicatorum, XXIX (1959), 268-71, by permission of the Istituto storico
domenicano di S. Sabina.

1208-1213
The group of heretics inhabiting our region, that is to say, the
dioceses of Narbonne, Beziers, Carcassonne, Toulouse, Albi, Rodez,
Cahors, Agen, and Plrigueux, believe and have the effrontery to say
that there are two gods, that is, a good God and a strange god, using
the text of Jeremiah: “As you have forsaken me,” He said, “and served
a strange god in your own land, so you shall serve strangers in a land
not your own.”* The present world and all that is visible therein, they
declare, were created and made by the malign god, for they show by
whatever arguments they can command that these are evil. Of the world
they say that it is “wholly seated in wickedness,”4 and that “a good tree
cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good
fruit.”5 They hold that all good things came from the good God and
from the evil one all evil things. The Mosaic law, they say, was im¬
parted by the evil god, for they cite from the words of the Apostle,
“The Law is one of sin and death” and “worketh wrath.”8 They declare
that when Christ gave the bread to His disciples, He told them, “Take
ye and eat,” and, touching Himself with His hand, said, “This is my
body”;7 wherefore they do not believe that anyone consecrates the
Host. They speak slightingly of marriage of the flesh because Christ
said, “Whoever shall look on a woman,”8 and so on. They reject
baptism of children performed with actual water because children do
not have faith, for which they cite the Gospel, “He that believeth not
shall be condemned.”* They do not believe in the resurrection of the
bodies of this world, for Paul said, “Flesh and blood cannot possess the
kingdom of God.”10 Whatever is ritually observed in the Church Uni¬
versal they call vain and absurd, for they hold that doctrine to be a
thing of men and without basis, whereby one worships God in vain.
In their secret meetings their elders recount that the wicked god first
fashioned his creatures and at the beginning of his act of creation, made
four beings, two male and two female, a lion and a bee-eater,11 an
232 Heresy in Southern France

eagle and a spirit. The good God took from him the spirit and the
eagle and with diem He produced the things which He made.12 After
a long time, the malign god, enraged by his spoliation, sent a certain
son of his, whom they call Melchizedek, Seir, or Lucifer,18 with a great
and splendid host of men and women to the court of the good God, to
find whether guile might not avenge his father for his own. And on
beholding him, distinguished in beauty and intelligence, the good God
appointed him prince, priest, and steward over His own people, and
through him gave a testament14 to the people of Israel. In the absence
of the Lord, he beguiled the people into disbelief of the truth, pro¬
mising them that much more, better, and delightful things than those
which they had in their own land would be given them in his.16 They
yielded to his blandishments, spuming their God and the testament given
them. He bore away some of them and scattered them throughout his
realms. The more noble, a designation which these people took to
themselves, he sent into this world, which they call the last lake, the
farthest earth, and the deepest hell. He sent the souls, so they say, leaving
the bodies prostrate in the desert, abandoned by the spirits, for, as John
says in the Apocalypse, “The great dragon, that old serpent, devil and
Satan, struck with his tail the third part of the stars and dashed them
to earth.”16 Such, they say, are “the sheep which are lost of the house
of Israel,”17 to whom Christ was sent, as He himself says in the Gospel:
“The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost”;18
and also, “The Son of man came not to destroy souls but to save.”19
That Seir, as they assert, was the father of the lawgiver, for which they
cite in the Law: “The Lord came from Sinai, and from Seir he was bom
to us”;20 and in Ezechiel, “Son of man, set thy face against Mount Seir,
and prophesy concerning it, and say to it: Behold, Mount Seir, and I
will make thee desolate and waste. I will destroy thy cities and thou
shalt be desolate; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord, because
thou hast been an everlasting enemy and hast shut up the children of
Israel in the hands of the sword.”21 Also, they say that the malign god
exists without beginning or end, and rules as many and as extensive
lands, heavens, people, and creatures as the good God. The present
world, they say, will never pass away or be depopulated.22 They have
the daring to assert that the Blessed Mary, mother of Christ, was not of
this world. For they say in their secret meetings that Christ, in whom
they hope for salvation, was not in this world except in a spiritual sense
37. Albigenses and Waldenses 233
within the body of Paul, citing Paul himself: “Do you seek a proof of
Christ that speaketh in me?”2® For they say that Paul, “sold under
sin,”24 brought the Scriptures into this world and was held prisoner,
that he might reveal the ministry of Christ.
For they believe that Christ was born in the “land of the living,”25 of
Joseph and Mary, whom they say were Adam and Eve; there He
suffered and rose again; thence He ascended to His Father; there He
did and said all that was recorded of Him in the New Testament. With
this testament, and with His disciples, His father and mother, He passed
through seven realms, and thence freed His people. In that land of the
living, they believe, there are cities and outside them castles, villages
and woodlands, meadows, pastures, sweet water and salt, beasts of the
forest and domestic animals, dogs and birds for the hunt, gold and
silver, utensils of various kinds, and furniture. They also say that
everyone shall have his wife there and sometimes a mistress. They shall
eat and drink, play and sleep, and do all things just as they do in the
world of the present. And all will be, as they say, well pleasing to God
when “the saints shall rejoice in glory; they shall be joyful in their
beds,” and when they shall have “two-edged swords in their hands to
execute vengeance upon the nations,” and when the children of Zion
shall praise his name in choir and with the timbrel, for “this glory will
be to all his saints.”2® For God himself, they say, has two wives,
Collam and Colibam,27 and from them He engendered sons and
daughters, as do humans. On the basis of this belief, some of them hold
there is no sin in man and woman kissing and embracing each other, or
even lying together for intercourse, nor can one sin in doing so for
payment.
They also believe that when the soul leaves the human body, it passes
to another body, either of a human or of a beast, unless the person
shall have died while under their instruction. If, however, he shall have
died while continuing steadfast among them, they say that the soul goes
to a new earth, prepared by God for all the souls that are to be saved,
where it finds clothing, that is, the body prepared for it by its own
father and mother. There all await the general resurrection which they
shall experience, so they say, in the land of the living, with all their
inheritance which they shall recover by force of arms. For they say
that until then they shall possess that land of the malign spirit and shall
make use of the clothing of the sheep, and shall eat the good things of
234 Heresy in Southern France

the earth, and shall not depart thence until all Israel is saved. Also they
teach in their secret meetings that Mary Magdalen was the wife of
Christ. She was the Samaritan woman to whom He said, “Call thy
husband.”28 She was the woman taken in adultery, whom Christ set free
lest the Jews stone her, and she was with Him in three places, in the
temple, at the well, and in the garden.8* After the Resurrection, He
appeared first to her. They say that John the Baptist is one of the chief
malign spirits.
And thus they are diverse and cut off from other men by faith and
practice; so also among themselves they adopt various heresies and
each one strives with all his might to find something novel and unheard
of. He will be accounted the wisest who can invent the greatest novelty.
There is, moreover, a certain heresy which recently has sprung up
among them, for some of them believe that there is only one god,80
whom they say had two sons, Christ and the prince of this world, for
which they cite the Gospel, “A certain man had two sons.”*1 They
believe that both sons committed sins but that Christ, with all His
people, is now reconciled with the Father.38 And they say that the Last
Judgment has already been pronounced: The sheep and the wise virgins
have received the kingdom with die Bridegroom; the goats and the
foolish virgins have been cast out into the present darkness to be
punished. They also say that whatever happens to anyone, good
fortune or bad, comes by judgment or destiny; a good man prospers
no more than a bad one, but in the reconciliation of the Son, all shall
be reconciled.
There are, moreover, other heretics, who are called “the Lyonists,”
from Lyons; “the Waldenses,” from Waldes; “the Poor,” because they say
they take no thought for the morrow; “the Sandal-shod,” because they
wear perforated footgear.** From Catalonia to the sea at Narbonne and
thence to the sea at Bordeaux, these persons publicly confess the
Catholic faith by mouth but not in heart, yet in their secret meetings,
with which I am in fact very familiar, they say that they alone, as
disciples of Christ, have the right to baptize. Whence they baptize the
children of their believers and of those who shelter them whenever they
can. Out of this practive, the sect of Rebaptizers arose from them.34
They also believe and say that one sins criminally in inflicting or
approving the infliction of bodily punishment on malefactors; so also
does one who takes an oath. They say in addition that if anyone in-
37. Albigenses and Waldenses 235

tending to offer an oblation to a priest or before an altar should meet

a pauper, he ought rather to give it to the poor man, for such an act is
more blessed than to make offering. Revisiting a cemetery, asperging
with exorcised water, employing incense, saying Mass for the dead
avail naught, so they say. They also believe—and it is shameful to
recount it—that the Roman Church gives them no more of a spiritual
viaticum than may any man or woman of their number, lacking eccle¬
siastical garb or without tonsure; and such have the right to consecrate
the Host. They say further, that no one can be perfect and thus no one
can be saved unless he die completely a pauper and—let me confess the
M

truth—they trouble and attack the Church of God more than other
heretics. And it seems to me that neither those persons nor the others
can be wholly extirpated except by the secular arm.85

38. A Description of Cathars and Waldenses

by Peter of Vaux-de- Cernay
The following account was written by a young Cistercian monk of the abbey
of Vaux-de-Cernay, some twenty-five miles southwest of Paris. His uncle,
Guy, had been abbot of the monastery since 1184; when Guy joined the
Albigensian crusaders in Languedoc in 1212 he took Peter with him. There,
during the following six years, Peter spent a considerable portion of his
time following the army of Simon of Montfort, and there he wrote the
history of the crusade up to the death of Simon in 1218. The work appears
to have been written in parts; the first of these, from which the following
excerpt is taken, was probably composed in 1213. The author had robust
prejudices, which, coupled with his enthusiasm for the miraculous, might
lead the reader to question the authenticity of the work. He did have good
sources of information, however; in many of the events of which he writes
he was himself a participant, and where his facts can be checked by other
accounts he displays a high degree of accuracy. His biases are so evident
and forthright that they may be readily discounted by the reader. The piece
here translated shows an excellent grasp of the tenets of the Cathars, despite
the fact that Peter seems to have been a young man—possibly scarcely more
than twenty years of age—when he wrote. As we mentioned earlier, it has
been suggested that Peter drew on “An Exposure of the Heresies of the
Albigenses and Waldenses” (translated in No. 37); there are indeed simi¬
larities between the two accounts, but also considerable differences. Peter’s
narrative ends abruptly, shortly after the death of Simon of Montfort, and
nothing further is known of the author.
The Hystoria albigensis has been several times edited, translated into
A

French, and commented upon, but the edition by Gu6bin and Lyon super-
236 Heresy in Southern France
sedes all previous ones, and the best discussion of the author and his work
appears therein (III, i-cvii). To that edition we are indebted for several of
our notes. A French translation was published by Guebin and Henri Maison-
neuve under the title Histoire albigeoise (Paris, 1951).
- ••

Our translation is from Petri VaUium Sarnaii monachi Hystoria albigensis

1.5-19, ed. by Pascal Guebin and Ernest Lyon (3 vols., Paris, 1926-1939),
I, 5-20. The work was published by the Librairie Honor6 Champion.

circa 1213
Part I: Concerning the Heretics
... [5] In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and to His Glory and
Honor, Here Begins the History of the Albigenses.1—In the province
of Narbonne, where once the faith had flourished, the enemy of the
faith began to oversow cockle.2 The people became fatuous; by pro¬
faning the sacraments of Christ, who is the savor and wisdom of God,
they were rendered foolish; turning aside from true reverence (theo-
sebia), they wandered hither and yon through the pathless waste of
error, “where there was no passing, and out of the way.”3
[6] Two Cistercian monks, Brother Peter of Castelnau and Brother
Ralph,4 burning with zeal for the faith, were by the supreme pontiff
commissioned as legates to fight against the pestilence of infidelity.
Casting off all sloth and performing with great diligence the mission
entrusted to them, they boldly entered and assailed the city of Toulouse,
which was the principal source of the baleful poison that was infecting
the people and was thus turning them from the knowledge of Christ,
from His true splendor, from His divine radiance.5 “The root of bitter¬
ness, springing up to hinder,”8 had so deeply embedded itself in the
hearts of men that it could be eradicated only with great difficulty. The
people of Toulouse had been urged frequently and earnestly to abjure
heresy and expel the heretics. Urged they had been by apostolic men,
but not at all persuaded;7 with such tenacity, indeed, had those who
had abandoned life clung to death, weakened and poisoned by base
cleverness, sensual, earthly, devilish, having no part in that “wisdom
that is from above, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good.”8
[7] Finally, those “two olive trees,” those “two candlesticks” shining
before the Lord,2 struck slavish terror in the servile, threatened them
with the loss of their property, forcefully assured them of the wrath of
kings and princes, and thus persuaded them to abjure heresy and expel
the heretics. They ceased to sin, not from love of virtue, but rather, as
38. Cathars and Waldenses 237

the poet says, from fear of punishment.10 This they made abundantly
clear; for immediately they committed perjury and suffered a return to
their wretched condition, and secreted heretics who, under cover of
darkness, preached in their assemblies. Alas, how difficult it is to break
with old habit!
[8] This Toulouse, totally sunk in deceit,11 is said from the very day
of its founding rarely or never to have been free from the abominable
pestilence of this heretical depravity, the poison of superstitious infidelity
being handed down from fathers to sons over the generations. For this
reason, and in punishment for such wickedness, she is said justly to
have suffered a long time ago the hand of the avenger and the de¬
struction of her people to the point that the plow had extended the
open fields to the very center of the city. Indeed, one of their most
renowned kings, named Alaric, I believe, who was then ruling in the
city, suffered the ultimate disgrace of hanging from a gibbet before the
gates. 12

[9] Fouled by the dregs of that ancient slime, the brood of Toulouse,
a “generation of vipers,”13 could not, even in our day, be torn from the
root of its perversity; nay rather, on every occasion it permits the return
of heretical nature and natural heresy, “driven out by the pitchfork” of
condign vengeance,14 and thirsts to follow in the footsteps of its fathers
and spurns a breach with the past. “Just as one bunch of grapes takes
on its sickly color from the aspect of its neighbor, and in the fields the
scab of one sheep or the mange of one pig destroys an entire herd,”15
so, influenced by the proximity of Toulouse, neighboring towns and
villages in which heresiarchs had put down their roots were wonderfully
and woefully infected by this spreading disease as the sprouts of its
infidelity multiplied. The nobles of the Provencal land16 had nearly all
become defenders and receivers17 of heretics; they warmly cherished
and protected them against God and the Church.
[10] Concerning the Sects of Heretics.—Since this seems an ap¬
propriate place, I think it worthwhile to describe with clarity and
brevity the heresies and sects of heretics. It should first be understood
that the heretics postulated18 two creators, to wit, one of the invisible
world, whom they called the benign God, and one of the visible world,
or the malign god. They ascribed the New Testament to the benign
God, the Old Testament to the malign one; the latter book they wholly
rejected, except for a few passages which have found their way into the
238 Heresy in Southern France

New Testament and which on this account they esteemed worthy of

acceptance. They claimed that the author of the Old Testament was a
liar in that he said to our first ancestors, “In what day soever thou shalt
eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt die the death”;19
but they did not die as he had said, after eating of it (although in reality
they were subject to the pitiable limitations of death immediately upon
eating the forbidden fruit). They also called him a murderer because he
burned the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed the world
in the flood, and also because he overwhelmed Pharaoh and the
Egyptians in the Red Sea. They held that all the patriarchs of the Old
Testament were damned, and declared that St. John the Baptist was one
of the greatest devils.
[11] The heretics even affirmed in their secret assemblies that the
Christ who was bom in terrestrial and visible Bethlehem and crucified
in Jerusalem was evil, and that Mary Magdalen was his concubine and
the very woman taken in adultery of whom we read in the Gospel;20 for
the good Christ, they said, never ate nor drank nor took on real flesh,
and was never of this world, except in a spiritual sense in the body of
Paul. That is why we said “bom in terrestrial and visible Bethlehem,”
because the heretics professed to believe that there is another new and
invisible land, in which, according to certain of them, the good Christ
was born and was crucified. The heretics also taught that the good God
had two wives, Oolla and Ooliba [sic], upon whom He begat sons and
daughters. There were other heretics, who said that there is but one
Creator, who had two sons, Christ and the devil. And these also said
that all created beings were originally good, but that by the vials of
which we read in the Apocalypse all things were corrupted.21
[12] All of these, limbs of Antichrist, the first born of Satan, “wicked
seed, ungracious children,” “speaking lies in hypocrisy,” “seducing the
hearts of the innocent,”22 corrupted almost the whole province of Nar-
bonne with the poison of their perfidy. They called the Roman Church
a “den of thieves” and that harlot of whom we read in Apocalypse.23
They held as naught the sacraments of the Church to the point of
teaching publicly that the water of holy baptism differs not at all from
water of a river; that the consecrated bread of the most holy body of
Christ is no different from ordinary bread; instilling into the ears of
simple folk die blasphemy that the body of Christ, even were it as great
as the Alps, would long since have been completely consumed by
38. Cathars and Waldenses 239
communicants who partook of it;84 that confirmation, extreme unction,
and confession are trifling and silly matters; and that holy matrimony is
nothing else than harlotry, nor can anyone fathering sons and daughters
in that state achieve salvation. They denied the resurrection of the body;
they concocted certain unheard-of fables, averring that our souls are
those of angelic spirits who were thrown out of heaven because of the
apostasy of pride and who left their glorified bodies in the ether. These
souls, after successive indwellings in any seven terrestrial bodies what¬
soever, return again to those bodies which they had left, as though they
had thus completed their penance.
[13] Now, it must be understood that certain of the heretics were
called the Perfect or the Good Men; the others were called the believers
of heretics. Those who were called Perfect wore a black mantle; they
falsely claimed that they kept themselves chaste; they wholly refused to
eat meat, eggs, or cheese; they sought to give the impression of never
telling a lie, when they lied constantly, especially concerning God; and
they held that one should never for any reason take an oath. Those
were called believers of heretics who, while living in the world, did not
strive to attain the life of the perfected, but hoped nonetheless to
achieve salvation in their faith; they differed, indeed, in their manner of
life, but in faith (or, rather, in infidelity) they were at one. Those who
were called believers were absorbed in usuries, robberies, murders, sins
of the flesh, perjuries, and all sorts of perversities. They felt, in truth,
more secure and unbridled in their sinning because they believed that
they would be saved, without restitution of ill-gotten gains, without
confession and penance, so long as they were able in the last throes of
death to repeat the Lord’s Prayer and receive the imposition of hands
by their officials.
[14] For they had among the perfected heretics a hierarchy whom
they called “deacons” and “bishops,”2S without the imposition of whose
hands just prior to death no one of the believers thought he could attain
salvation. Indeed, if the officials imposed their hands upon anyone
about to die, however profligate he might be, so long as he was able to
repeat the Lord’s Prayer they believed him to be saved, and, as they
commonly said, “consoled,” so that, with no reparation, without further
good works, his soul would immediately fly up to heaven.
[15] Here, I am minded to recount an absurdity which, I am told,
occurred in connection with the above. A certain believer of heretics,
240 Heresy in Southern France

in the last throes of death, received the consolamentum26 through

the imposition of hands by his master but was unable to repeat the
Lord’s Prayer. And thus he died. The one who consoled him was at a
loss to know what to say about him; he appeared to be saved through
the imposition of hands but likewise to be damned through his failure to
repeat the Lord’s Prayer. What further? The heretics took counsel with
a certain heretical knight, Bertrand of Saissac,27 about the decision that
should be made in the case. The knight gave his counsel and reply as
follows: “In the case of this man, I should support him and declare him
to be saved. It is my judgment that all others, unless at the last moment
they have repeated the Lord’s Prayer, are damned.”
[16] And here is another absurdity: A certain believer of heretics at
death bequeathed to them three hundred sous and bade his son to
remit that sum to the heretics. But when, upon the father’s death, the
heretics asked the son for this legacy, he said to them: “Tell me first, if
you please, how it is with my father now.” They replied: “You may be
sure that he is saved and is already gathered with the spirits above.” To
which the son smilingly rejoined: “Thanks be to God and to you! Of a
surety, since my father is already in glory his soul has no further need
of alms; and I know you to be so kindly that you would not now recall
my father from glory. Be assured, therefore, that you will receive no
money from me.”
[17] Nor do I think the remark of certain heretics that no one can
sin from the waist down should be passed over in silence.28 They
called the placing of images in churches idolatry; insisted that church
bells are trumpets of devils; averred that one sins no more grievously
in sleeping with mother or sister than with anyone else; and, among the
most extreme heretical follies, they affirmed that if any one of the per¬
fected should commit mortal sin (for example, by eating the very
smallest morsel of meat, cheese, egg, or any other food forbidden to
them), all those consoled by him lose the Holy Spirit and must be
reconsoled; and they even said that those already saved fall from heaven
because of the sin of the one who consoled them.
[18] Besides these, there were other heretics, called Waldenses from
a certain Waldes, a citizen of Lyons. These were bad enough, but in
comparison with the other heretics they were much less wicked. Indeed,
on many matters they were in agreement with us, on others they dif¬
fered. But to pass over many points of their unbelief, their error con-
38. Cathars and Waldenses 241
sisted chiefly in four things: to wit, in the wearing of sandals after the
fashion of the apostles; in their refusal, wider any circumstances, to
swear an oath; [their refusal] to take life; and in their claim that any
one of them in case of necessity, so long as he is a sandal-wearer
(haberet sandalia) may perform the sacrament of the Eucharist, even
though he may not have been ordained by a bishop. This brief survey
of the heretical sects seems to us sufficient.
[19] The Method of Conversion, or Rather Perversion, of the Her¬
etics.—When one yields himself to the heretics, the one who receives
him addresses him as follows: “My friend, if you wish to become one of
us you must renounce all belief in the tenets of the Roman Church.” He
replies: “I renounce it.” “Receive, then, the Spirit from the good men”;
and he breathes in his mouth seven times.29 Again, he says to him: “Do
you renounce that cross which at baptism the priest made with oil and
chrism on your breast, shoulders, and head?” He replies: “I renounce
it.” “Do you believe that that water effects your salvation?” He replies:
“I do not believe that.” “Do you renounce the veil which at baptism the
priest places upon your head?” He replies: “I renounce it.” Thus he
receives the baptism of the heretics and rejects the baptism of the
Church. Then all place their hands upon his head, kiss him, and clothe
him in a black mantle. From that hour he is as one of them.
BLANK PAGE
 39. An Incident at Cologne in 1163
Two decades after Eberwin had appealed to St. Bernard for counsel about
heretics in Cologne (No. 16), another discovery of heretical activity alarmed
the city. The group now detected was small; perhaps these heretics had
persisted quietly in the Rhineland over the two decades, or they may have
been refugees from the prosecutions then being mounted in Flanders.1 Once
discovered, they faced formidable accusers. In addition to the usual array
of the city’s clergy, Eckbert, a monk of nearby Schonau who claimed pre¬
vious experience with heretics, may have been called into the investigation;
he subsequently wrote an antiheretical tract in the form of thirteen sermons.
The saintly Hildegard of Bingen also wrote and preached against the heresy.2
In Eckbert’s work and in the chronicles are the earliest uses of the sect name
“Cathar.” The doctrines were probably those of mitigated dualism, but it is
not easy to tell from Eckbert’s diatribes because he places so much reliance
on St. Augustine’s descripti n of the ancient Manichaeans.3 He does make
it clear, however, that all heretics of the time were not in perfect agreement.4
Several of the entries in the chronicles about this episode are reprinted
in Fredericq, Corpus, I, 40-44, and there are brief notices in Lea, History
of the Inquisition, I, 112-13, and Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen, pp. 57-58;
see also Thouzellier, “Heresie et croisade,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique,
XLIX (1954), 862-65.
More than half a century later, the burning at Cologne was recalled by
Caesarius of Heisterbach, who, characteristically, was able to make an
interesting story out of it without being explicit about the heretics’ errors.
Caesarius (ca. 1170-ca. 1240) was a monk of the Cistercian community at
Heisterbach, near Bonn. As master of the novices, charged with their in¬
struction in theology, he produced for their enlightenment his best-known
work, the Dialogus miraculorum, a mine of information on many aspects
of contemporary life, even though Caesarius was often a vague reporter
of historical events, with a taste for tales of the marvelous. The work has
been translated into English by Henry von Essen Scott and C. C. Swinton
Bland, as The Dialogue on Miracles.
The present translation is made from Caesarii Heisterbacensis dialogus
miraculorum v.xix, ed. by Joseph Strange (2 vols., Cologne, 1851), I, 298-99.
244 Heresy in Northern Europe

August 5, 1163
About this time, several heretics were apprehended at Cologne, under
Archbishop Rainald,® and after they were examined and convicted by
learned men, they were condemned by secular authority. After sentence
had been imposed and when they were about to be dragged away to the
pyre, one of them, Arnold by name, whom the others acknowledged as
their master,® asked (as persons who were present tell it) to be given
bread and a bowl of water. The more prudent persons dissuaded the
ones who wished to comply with his request, saying that by the devil’s
help something might be done with these to bring scandal and ruin on
the weak.
Novice: I wonder what he wanted to do with the bread and water.
Monk: I suppose, from the words of another heretic, who was
seized and burned by the king of Spain three years ago, he wanted to
r

perform a sacrilegious communion with them which might be a viaticum

to eternal damnation for his companions. For a Spanish abbot of our
order, who had joined the bishops and prelates of the Church in con¬
demning the errors of this heretic, when he visited us while on his
travels, quoted the man as saying that any countryman could make the
body of Christ out of his own bread at his own table.7 This cursed
fellow was a blacksmith.
Novice : What was done with the heretics at Cologne?
Monk: They were taken outside the town, near the cemetery of the
Jews, and all cast into the fire together. And as many stood to watch
and listen while they fiercely burned, Arnold, putting his hand on the
heads of his disciples who were already aflame, said, “Be firm in your
faith, for today you shall be with Lawrence”8—although theirs was quite
unlike the faith of Lawrence. Now there was among them a girl, comely
but a heretic. She was led away from the fire, thanks to the pity of some
persons who promised that they either would see her married or, if it
suited her better, would place her in a nunnery. She had apparently
agreed to this. But after the heretics were dead, she said to those
holding her, “Tell me, where lies that seducer?” And when they pointed
out to her the master, Arnold, wrenching herself from their grasp, she
covered her face with her robe and threw herself upon the body of the
dead man, with him descending into hell to burn forever.9
40. Heretics in England 245

40. The Fate of Heretics in England

This episode is the most important occurrence of heresy in England in the
twelfth century of which we have record.1 The heretics came from abroad,
from Flanders or the Rhineland, and while no report of their doctrines is
explicit enough to assure us that they were Cathars, this is not unlikely.
In the chief source, William of Newburgh’s history, their arrival is placed
about 1161, but a somewhat later date is more probable, for they apparently
were not condemned at Oxford until 1165 or 1166 and it is difficult to
reconcile a sojourn of even four years with the author’s statements that they
lived only a little while in England and that they were unable to escape
suspicion because of their foreign origin.2 Other accounts of the incident in
English chronicles give no help in the dating.
On William of Newburgh, see the introduction to Number 18. The best
recent treatment of the incident is in Russell, Dissent and Reform, pp. 224-
27, with discussion of the date on p. 309, n. 79.
Our translation is from Willelmi Parvi, canonici de Novoburgo, historia
rerum anglicarum i.xiii, ed. by Richard Howlett, in Chronicles of the Reigns
of Stephen, Henry //, and Richard 1 (Rolls Series, LXXXII [4 vols., London,
1884-1889]), I, 131-34. The same passage has appeared in an excellent Eng¬
lish translation by David C. Douglas and George W. Greenaway, in English
Historical Documents, II, 329-30.

1161-1166
In those days there came to England certain erring folk of the sect
commonly thought to be called Publicans.3 These seem to have origi¬
nated in Gascony under an unknown founder, and they spread the
poison of their infidelity in a great many regions; for in the broad lands
of France, Spain, Italy, and Germany so many are said to be infected
with this pestilence that, as the Psalmist of old complained, they seem
to have multiplied beyond number.4 For everywhere, when prelates of
the Ghurch and princes of the provinces act too leniently toward them,
the wicked foxes come forth from their holes and, under an appearance
of piety, seduce the simple folk, grievously and openly laying waste the
vineyard of the Lord of hosts.6 However, when the zeal of the faithful
is kindled against them by the fire of God, they hide away in their dens
and are less harmful, but still they cease not to do harm by spreading
their secret poison. Countryfolk, uneducated and sluggish of mind,
once they are poisoned by a draught of this virus, stubbornly resist all
discipline; whence it very rarely chances that any of them, when they
are discovered and dragged from their hiding places, are converted to
piety. Truly, England has always been free of this and other heretical
246 Heresy in Northern Europe

pestilences, even though so many heresies have spread in other parts of

the world. Indeed, when this island was called Britain from its in¬
habitants, the Britons, it sent forth to the East Pelagius,6 who sub¬
sequently became a heresiarch, and in the course of time it gave ad¬
mittance to his error, to destroy which the Gallican church with pious
foresight twice sent the Most Blessed Germanus.7 But when, after the
Britons were driven out, the nation of Angles took possession of this
island and it came to be called England instead of Britain, no poison of
this heresy ever bubbled up from it, nor, until the time of Henry II, did
any such come from abroad to be propagated and extended here. And
then, indeed, by God’s help such resistance was offered to the pestilence
which crept in that in the future it must fear to invade this island.
There were some thirty or more men and women who came here in
the guise of peaceable persons—hiding their error, the more readily to
spread the pestilence—under the leadership of one Gerard,8 whom they
all looked up to as teacher and guide. For he alone had a smattering of
learning; the others were entirely uneducated and stupid, uncouth and
loutish, Germans by birth and speech.9 After living a little while in
England, they added to their company only one poor woman, who was
deceived by their poisonous whisperings and, so it is said, was en¬
tranced by certain sorceries. They could not lie hidden for long, but
after careful investigation by certain persons because of their foreign
origin, they were arrested, confined, and held in public custody. Being
unwilling to release or punish them without examination, the king
ordered an episcopal synod to meet at Oxford. There, when the heretics
had been solemnly charged in the matter of their faith, they declared
(he who seemed to be educated undertaking the cause of all and speak¬
ing for all) that they were Christians and that they venerated apostolic
teaching. When they were questioned systematically upon the articles of
holy faith, they answered correctly enough on the nature of the Celestial
Physician, but as to the remedies by which He deigns to heal human
infirmities—that is, the divine sacraments—they gave wrong replies.
They scorned holy baptism, the Eucharist, and matrimony, and with
wicked rashness they disparaged the Catholic unity which these divine
aids instill. When they were challenged by divine texts drawn from the
Holy Scriptures, they answered that they believed what they had been
taught and were unwilling to argue about their faith. Being warned that
they should repent and be united to the body of the Church, they re-
40. Heretics in England 247
jected all whc lesome advice. They laughed at threats uttered in all piety
against them in the hope that through fear they might be brought to
their senses, and misapplied the word of the Lord, “Blessed are they
that suffer persecution for justice’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.”10 Thereupon, the bishops, taking precautions lest the heretical
poison should spread more widely, publicly denounced them as heretics
and handed them over to His Catholic Highness for corporal punish¬
ment. He commanded that the brand of heretical infamy be burned on
their brows, that they be flogged in the presence of the people, and that
they be driven out of the city. And he strictly enjoined anyone from
presuming to give them shelter or offer them any comfort. When the
sentence had been declared, they were led away, rejoicing in their just
punishment, their master leading them jauntily and chanting, “Blessed
are ye when men shall revile you.”11 To such an extent did the deceiver
abuse the minds of those he had seduced! But the woman whom they
had led astray in England abandoned them out of fear of punishment
and, by confessing her error, obtained reconciliation. Then the detest¬
able group were branded on the brows, and suffered a just severity—as
a mark of his primacy he who was their leader receiving a double brand
on brow and chin. Stripped of their clothing to the waist and publicly
flogged with resounding blows, they were driven out of the city, and
perished miserably in the bitter cold, for it was winter and no one
offered them the slightest pity. This pious harshness not only purged the
kingdom of England of that pestilence which crept in at this time but,
by striking the heretics with terror, prevented it from ever again in¬
truding.1*

41. “Publicans” at Vezelay

Heresy occurred at Vezelay in 1167 in the midst of civic tumult and a
monastery’s contest against episcopal and secular interference. Evidence
about the nature of the heresy is inconclusive; in some ways the errors are
reminiscent of the teaching of Henry and Peter of Bruys, but they may
reflect Catharist doctrine. The author of the history from which this account
is taken was Hugh of Poitiers, who spent his adult life in the monastery of
Ste. Madeleine in Vezelay, where he began to write a history of the monas¬
tery in 1156 at the bidding of Abbot Pons.1 The work was divided into four
books, the first a chartulary of the monastery; the other three a history of
the period from 1140 to 1167. The second book emphasizes the quarrel
between the abbots of Ste. Madeleine and the bishops of Autun, who were
248 Heresy in Northern Europe

disputing the abbot’s claims to immunity from their control. The third and
fourth recount the struggles of the abbots against the enchroachments of
the counts of Nevers—which drew to an end only in 1166—as well as their
conflicts with the townsmen of Vezelay, who in 1152 revolted against the
abbot as their temporal lord.2 It was during these conflicts that Hugh wrote
his history, the last entry in which is the story of the heresy, appended to
the narrative, seemingly apropos of nothing that went before. The history
has been preserved only in mutilated condition. Hugh wrote from his own
experience; probably he was among the group who examined the heretics,
although this is not stated in his own words. For a brief discussion of the
author and his work, see Histoire litteraire de la France, XII, 688-75. There
is only passing reference to the incident at Vezelay in the literature on
heresy; see Havet, “L’Heresie et le bras seculier,” Biblioth&que de Vecole des
chartes, XLI (1880), 510-12; and Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen, pp. 43-46.
The only complete edition of Hugh’s Historia Vizeliacensis monasterii
is that of Luc d’Achery, which was republished in Recueil des historiens des
Gaules et de la France, ed. by Bouquet et al. (24 vols., Paris, 1738-1904),
XII, 317-44; the portion translated here is found on pp. 343-44. D’Achery’s
edition was also republished inMigne, Patrologia latina, CXCIV, 1561-1682.

1167
At this time, certain heretics who are called Deonarii or Publicans3
were arrested at Vezelay. Brought up for examination, they sought to
conceal the utterly loathsome tenets of their heresy by evasion and
circumlocutions. So the abbot ordered them placed in solitary confine¬
ment until their guilt could be established by bishops and other dis¬
tinguished persons who were being called together.4 They were held for
some sixty days or more, and were frequently brought before the
gathering and questioned—now with threats and again with soft words—
about the Catholic faith. At length, after the vain expenditure of much
effort, with the advice and assistance of the archbishops of Lyons5 and
Narbonne,6 the bishop of Nevers,7 several abbots, and many other
learned men, they were adjudged guilty of the charge that, while paying
lip service to the unity of the Divine Essence, they rejected absolutely
all the holy sacraments of the Universal Church: specifically, the baptism
of children, the Eucharist, the seal of the life-giving Cross, sprinkling
with holy water, the building of churches, good works in tithes and
offerings, the marital relations of husband and wife, the monastic life,
and all the functions of clergy and priests. As the celebration of Easter
began, two of them, realizing that they were very near to being con¬
demned to a fiery death, pretended that their belief was that of the
41. “Publicans” at Vizelay

Universal Church and, for peace with the Church, they would seek
purgation by the ordeal of water.
Therefore, during the solemn Easter procession they were brought
before a great throng which filled the whole cloister, where were present
Guichard, archbishop of Lyons; Bernard, bishop of Nevers; and Master
Walter, bishop of Laon;8 together with Abbot William of Vezelay.
They were questioned on each tenet of the faith, and declared that they
held absolutely the beliefs of the Universal Church. To questions about
the abominable mystery of their error, they replied that they knew no
more than the aforesaid denial of the sacraments of the Church. When
asked if they would prove by ordeal of water that they believed what
they professed and knew nothing more of the mystery of error, they
answered that they would willingly undertake to do so, without further
judgment. At this, the entire congregation exclaimed with one voice,
“Thanks be to God!” The abbot, addressing the whole assemblage,
asked, “Brethren, what is your advice for dealing with those who still
remain obdurate?” and all answered, “Let them be burned! Let them
be burned!”
On the following day, the two men, who gave the appearance of
having recanted, were conducted to the judgment by ordeal of water.
In everyone’s opinon, one of them was acquitted by the water (never¬
theless, there were some who thought it a dubious decision). On the
other hand, the second man, when plunged into the water, was declared
guilty by nearly unanimous acclaim. Remanded to confinement, since
opinion was not unanimous even among the clergy, he again underwent
the ordeal of water, at his own request, and was a second time immersed,
but the water scarcely received him at all. Thus twice condemned, he
was sentenced by all to the fire. But the abbot came to his assistance
and ordered instead that he be banished after a public flogging. Others
of the accused, however, to the number of seven, were given to the
flames and were burned in the vale of Ecouan."

42. Front Heresy to Witchcraft

Magic and sorcery, like other manifestations of superstition, are not confined
to one age; their roots lie in the early history of man, and their expression
is conditioned by the times. The Middle Ages inherited a substantial residue
of pagan magic, which was transmuted and modified under Christian
influence; pagan deities, for example, were often numbered among the
250 Heresy in Northern Europe

demons, whose existence not even the Church doubted. To speak only in
the general terms to which we are limited here, magic and sorcery were
regarded in the Middle Ages, as in all times, as means of controlling the
environment, including one’s fellow men. Spirits might be invoked to bring
rain or drought, wind or burning heat, disease or fatal accident, to men,
animals, or plants. With demonic aid, the future might be foretold. Occult
forces could even be summoned in aid of good causes.
The Church and its priesthood might use its power to avert harm from
malign spirits, but it frowned on the use of magic to enlist the aid of the
spirit world.1 Penitential books contain many references to penances pre¬
scribed for those who sought to control occult powers; the canon entitled
Episcopi, of uncertain date but current by the late ninth century, set forth
what was for long the guiding principle of ecclesiastical authority in disci¬
plining those who practiced or believed in sorcery or magic: If they persisted,
the local bishop should excommunicate them and expel them from his
diocese.2
Yet belief in the interference of the spirit world in human affairs could
not be easily eradicated. Innumerable stories of demonic activity, and learned
explanations of how spirits were permitted to operate within the providence
of God, attest that magic and sorcery were given wide credence at every
level of society. Though the Church censured the belief in man’s ability to
invoke demons, such belief was not initially considered heresy. Only slowly
did the Church come to emphasize the danger that communing with demons
might involve veneration of them, which is heresy.
There have already appeared in these pages accounts of nocturnal gather¬
ings in which the devil was worshiped, and of magical powers—manifested
in levitation, appearance and disappearance at will, and illusory banquets—
which heretics exercised with demonic assistance.3 The two narratives trans¬
lated here throw light on the relationship between magic, witchcraft, and
heresy in popular opinion in the last quarter of the twelfth century. Yet not
until the middle of the thirteenth century did the Church adopt the position
that all dabbling with occult powers involved demon-worship; and even so,
official prosecution of witchcraft did not begin in earnest until some time
thereafter. To trace the ensuing developments would take us beyond the
limits of this volume, but some of the antecedents of the witchcraft epidemic
of early modern times may be indicated here.
In the second quarter of the thirteenth century, certain inquisitors sought
to bring within their purview cases in which individuals were thought to
have entered into pacts with the devil, pacts whereby they were granted
special powers in this world, at the cost of their souls. Between 1231 and
1233, for example, Conrad of Marburg, commissioned by Gregory IX to
act against heresy in Germany, revealed to the pope testimony about a cult
of demon-worship and was urged most emphatically to press his investiga¬
tions and to root out the evil.4 Yet in 1258 and 1260 Pope Alexander IV,
in reply to questions from inquisitors about the scope of their authority and
the proper procedure to be followed, counseled them that they confine their
42. From Heresy to Witchcraft 251
activities to searching out and punishing heretics, that they take cognizance
of divination and sorcery only when manifest heresy was involved. Through
that loophole some cases of witchcraft did find their way into the courts of
the Inquisition from the end of the thirteenth century on, but it was not
until 1484 that Pope Innocent VIII fully reversed the rule laid down by
Alexander IV; inquisitors were then instructed to prosecute ruthlessly those
who invoked the devil.5 The great furor about witchcraft followed in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.6
Part A of the following translations is taken from the chronicle of Ralph,
abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Coggeshall (1207-1218). The date of
the episode he recounts must lie between the consecration of William of
Champagne as archbishop of Rheims (1176) and the death of Louis VII of
France (1180). Ralph’s work is his own from the last quarter of the twelfth
century, a period for which he had good sources of information, especially
on events in France. The excerpt here is translated from Radulphi de
Coggeshall Chronicon anglicanum, ed. by Joseph Stevenson (Rolls Series,
LXVI [London, 1875]), pp. 121-25, by permission of Her Majesty’s Sta¬
tionery Office and the Kraus Reprint Corporation. Part of this passage has
already appeared in translation in G.G. Coulton’s Life in the Middle Ages,
I, 29-32, and in his Inquisition and Liberty, pp. 35-38.
Part B is translated from the work of Walter Map, from which Number
31, part B, was also drawn. Since this incident cannot be precisely dated,
we have entered it under the year in which Walter Map began to compile
his work. The text is from De nugis aurialium i.xxx, ed. by Montague
R. James (Anecdota oxoniensa..., medieval and modern series, XIV
{Oxford, 1914]), pp. 57-59, by permission of the Clarendon Press.

A. A MARVELOUS INCIDENT AT RHEIMS

1176-1180
In the time of Louis, king of France, who fathered King Philip,
while the error of certain heretics, who are called Publicans in the ver¬
nacular, was spreading through several of the provinces of France, a
marvelous thing happened in the city of Rheims in connection with an
old woman infected with that plague. For one day when Lord William, 7

archbishop of that city and King Philip’s uncle, was taking a canter with
his clergy outside the city, one of his clerks, Master Gervais of Tilbury
by name,8 noticed a girl walking alone in a vineyard. Urged by the
curiosity of hot-blooded youth, he turned aside to her, as we later heard
from his own lips when he was a canon. He greeted her and attentively
inquired whose daughter she was and what she was doing there alone,
and then, after admiring her beauty for a while, he at length in courtly
fashion made her a proposal of wanton love. She was much abashed,
252 Heresy in Northern Europe

and with eyes cast down, she answered him with simple gesture and a
certain gravity of speech: “Good youth, the Lord does not desire me
ever to be your friend or the friend of any man, for if ever I forsook my
virginity and my body had once been defiled, I should most assuredly
fall under eternal damnation without hope of recall.”
As he heard this, Master Gervais at once realized that she was one
of that most impious sect of Publicans, who at that time were everywhere
being sought out and destroyed, especially by Philip, count of Flanders,
who was harassing them pitilessly with righteous cruelty.8 Some of them,
indeed, had come to England and were seized at Oxford, where by
command of King Henry II they were shamefully branded on their
foreheads with a red-hot key.10 While the aforesaid clerk was arguing
with the girl to demonstrate the error of such an answer, the archbishop
approached with his retinue and, learning the cause of the argument,
ordered the girl seized and brought with him to the city. When he
addressed her in the presence of his clergy and advanced many scrip¬
tural passages and reasonable arguments to confute her error, she
replied that she had not yet been well enough taught to demonstrate the
falsity of such statements but she admitted that she had a mistress in the
city who, by her arguments, would very easily refute everyone’s objec¬
tions. So, when the girl had disclosed the woman’s name and abode, she
was immediately sought out, found, and haled before the archbishop
by his officials. When she was assailed from all sides by the archbishop
himself and the clergy with many questions and with texts of the Holy
Scriptures which might destroy such error, by perverse interpretation
she so altered all the texts advanced that it became obvious to everyone
that the spirit of all error spoke through her mouth. Indeed, to the texts
and narratives of both the Old and New Testaments which they put to
her, she answered as easily, as much by memory, as though she had
mastered a knowledge of all the Scriptures and had been well trained
in this kind of response, mixing the false with the true and mocking the
true interpretation of our faith with a kind of perverted insight. There¬
fore, because it was impossible to recall the obstinate minds of both
these persons from the error of their ways by threat or persuasion, or
by any arguments or scriptural texts, they were placed in prison until
the following day.
On the morrow they were recalled to the archiepiscopal court, before
the archbishop and all the clergy, and in the presence of the nobility
42. From Heresy to Witchcraft 253
were again confronted with many reasons for renouncing their error
publicly. But since they yielded not at all to salutary admonitions but
persisted stubbornly in error once adopted, it was unanimously decreed
that they be delivered to the flames. When the fire had been lighted in
the city and the officials were about to drag them to the punishment
decreed, that mistress of vile error exclaimed, “O foolish and unjust
judges, do you think now to burn me in your flames? I fear not your
judgment, nor do I tremble at the waiting fire!” With these words, she
suddenly pulled a ball of thread from her heaving bosom and threw it
out of a large window, but keeping the end of the thread in her hands;
then in a loud voice, audible to all, she said “Catch!” At the word, she
was lifted from the earth before everyone’s eyes and followed the ball
out the window in rapid flight, sustained, we believe, by the ministry of
the evil spirits who once caught Simon Magus up into the air.11 What
became of that wicked woman, or whither she was transported, the
onlookers could in no wise discover. But the girl had not yet become
so deeply involved in the madness of that sect; and, since she still was
present, yet could be recalled from the stubborn course upon which she
had embarked neither by the inducement of reason nor by the promise
of riches, she was burned. She caused a great deal of astonishment to
many, for she emitted no sigh, not a tear, no groan, but endured all the
agony of the conflagration steadfastly and eagerly, like a martyr of
Christ. But for how different a cause from the Christian religion, for
which they of the past were slaughtered by pagans! People of this wicked
sect choose to die rather than be converted from error; but they have
nothing in common with the constancy and steadfastness of martyrs
for Christ, since it is piety which brings contempt for death to the latter,
to the former it is hardness of heart.
These heretics allege that children should not be baptized until they
reach the age of understanding; they add that prayers should not be
offered for the dead, nor intercession asked of the saints. They condemn
marriages; they preach virginity as a cover for their lasciviousness.
They abhor milk and anything made thereof and all food which is the
product of coition. They do not believe that purgatorial fire awaits one
after death but that once the soul is released it goes immediately to rest
or to damnation. They accept no scriptures as holy except the Gospels
and the canonical letters. They are countryfolk and so cannot be over¬
come by rational argument, corrected by scriptural texts, or swayed by
254 Heresy in Northern Europe

persuasions. They choose rather to die than to be converted from this

most impious sect. Those who have delved into their secrets declare also
that these persons do not believe that God administers human affairs or
exercises any direction or control over earthly creatures. Instead, an
apostate angel, whom they call Luzabel,12 presides over all the material
creation, and all things on earth are done by his will. The body is
shaped by the devil, the soul is created by God and infused into the
body; whence it comes about that a persistent struggle is always being
waged between body and soul. Some also say that in their subterranean
haunts they perform execrable sacrifices to their Lucifer at stated times
and that there they enact certain sacrilegious infamies.

B. A VICTORY OF FAITH OVER “HERETICAL MAGIC”

circa 1182
Another old heresy13 has recently spread beyond measure, arising
from those who forsook the Lord when He spoke about eating His
flesh and drinking His blood, declaring “this saying is hard” and turn¬
ing back.14 They are called Publicans or Patarines.15 Everywhere among
Christians they have lain hidden since the time of the Lord’s Passion,
straying in error.16 At first they had special houses in the villages where
they lived, and all of them, whencesoever they came, recognized their
houses by the smoke, as the saying goes.17 They do not accept the
Gospel of John;18 in the matter of the body and blood of Christ, the
blessed bread, they laugh at us. Men and women live together, but no
sons or daughters are born of that intimacy.
Many, however, have recovered their senses and have returned to
the faith. These have told how, about the first watch of the night, when
gates, doors, and windows have been closed, the groups sit waiting in
silence in their respective synagogues,19 and a black cat of marvelous
size climbs down a rope which hangs in their midst. On seeing it, they
put out the lights. They do not sing hymns or repeat them distinctly,
but hum through clenched teeth and pantingly feel their way toward the
place where they saw their lord. When thay have found him they kiss
him, each the more humbly as he is the more inflamed with frenzy
some the feet, more under the tail, most the private parts. And, as if
drawing license for lasciviousness from the place of foulness, each
seizes the man or woman next to him and they commingle as long as
42. From Heresy to Witchcraft 255
each is able to prolong the wantonness. The masters also say, and teach
the novices, that it is perfect charity to do or suffer what brother or
sister may have desired or sought, namely, to soothe one another when
burning with passion; and from submitting they are called Patarines.20
Only sixteen have as yet come to England, and they disappeared after
they had been branded and beaten with rods by order of King Henry II.21
They are not known in Normandy or Brittany; in Anjou there are many,
but in Aquitaine and Burgundy their number is great beyond all bounds.
Their compatriots say also that they snare their table guests by
means of one of their dishes and so make like themselves those whom
they dare not approach with the secret preachments they commonly use.
For instance, there occurred an incident about which Lord William,
archbishop of Rheims, brother to the queen of France, told me and
confirmed by many witnesses.22 It seems that a certain noble prince of
the region of Vienne, in fear of this detestable rapine, always carried
with him some consecrated salt in a pouch, not knowing whose house
he was going to enter and fearing the wiles of the enemy everywhere;
this salt he put on all foods, even at his own table. By chance, news was
brought to him that two knights had subverted his nephew, the lord of
many people and towns, so he forthwith went to his nephew’s home.
While they were eating together in their usual fashion the nephew,
unaware of what was at hand, had his uncle served a dish consisting of
a whole red mullet, which appeared “fair to the eyes” and “good to
eat.”23 But the nobleman put the salt on it and the fish suddenly dis¬
appeared, leaving on the dish what looked like pellets of rabbit’s dung.
The knight and those who were with him were horrified. He pointed
out the miracle to his nephew and most devoutly urged repentance
upon him; and with floods of tears he expounded to him the multitude
of the Lord’s mercies, and how all the efforts of demons were over¬
come by faith alone, as had just been displayed before his eyes.24
The nephew took the admonition with bad grace and retired to his
private apartment. Thereupon the prince, grieving that he had been
deceived, carried away with him in chains the knights who had misled
his nephew; in the presence of a large throng he shut them, firmly
bound to a post, in a hut, and setting fire to it, he burned the whole
building. But the fire did not touch the men at all nor was even the
slightest burn found on their clothing. At this a tumult of the people
arose against the prince, for they declared, “We have sinned against
256 Heresy in Northern Europe

most righteous men, against the faith confirmed by true miracles.”26

The prince, in no wise doubting or questioning his Christian faith
because of so strange an event, soothed the wrath and outcries of the
mob with flatteries and affirmed the faith with kindly words. He took
counsel with the archbishop of Vienne,26 who shut the knights, bound
as before, in a larger house and, making a circuit of its whole exterior,
sprinkled it with holy water to counteract the magic. He then had fire
brought, but by no blowing or feeding could it be made to ignite the
house or to bum anything whatever.
At this the people of the city felt their faith to be under attack, and
so railed at the archbishop that many broke out openly with foolish
shouts against him; and had not fear of their lord prince prevented,
they would have thrown the archbishop himself into the flames and
liberated the innocent men. They did, however, tear down the doors,
and rushed into the house. But when they came to the post, they found
that the bones and flesh of the men had become charcoal and glowing
ashes; they saw that the bonds were unharmed, the post untouched,
and that the most righteous fire had punished only those who had
sinned. Thus the good Lord turned the hearts of the wayward to re¬
pentance and blasphemies to praise.

43. The Spread of Heresy in Northern Europe

Between 1180 and 1215, incidents of heresy were reported in Arras, Auxerre,
Besan§on, La Charite-sur-Loire, Metz, Nevers, Rouen, Soissons, and Troyes.1
Most of the information comes from chronicles, where the reports are brief
and not very informative except as to the fate of the accused. The accounts
translated here were chosen as typical. They serve to illustrate the sparsity of
detail in these sources as well as the spread of heresy—or, perhaps, the in¬
creasing alertness of orthodox contemporaries to heresy.
Both passages in part A are from one of the continuators of the chronicle
of Sigibert of Gembloux, Sigiberti Gemblacensis chronographia: Continuatio
Acquinctina, ed. by L. C. Bethmann, in Monumenta Germaniae historica,
Scriptores, VI, 421, translated by permission of Anton Hiersemann Verlag
and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Part B comes from Caesarii
Heisterbaeensis dialogus miraculorum v.xx, ed. b. Joseph Strange (2 vols.,
Cologne, 1851), I, 299-300.

A. HERETICS IN ARRAS
1182
Four heretics seized in the city of Arras were imprisoned by Frumald,
43. The Spread of Heresy 257
the bishop of that city.2 One of them, named Adam, was an educated
man; another, called Ralph, was a most eloquent layman; the names of
their followers are unknown to us. The bishop, who was suffering se¬
verely from palsy, reserved the case for the archbishop.

1183
As soon as the Christmas season was past, William, archbishop of
Rheims,3 and Philip, count of Flanders [1168-1191], met in the city to
discuss their private affairs. There, the deceits of numerous heresies in
the count’s domain were exposed by a certain woman. These heretics
were not organized under the leadership of any heresiarch. Some give
them the name of Manichaeans, others Catafrigians,4 others Arians; but
Pope Alexander [III] calls them Patarines.® Whatever they may be,
they were convicted as the filthiest heretics out of their own mouths.
Many were accused before the archbishop and the count: nobles and
commoners, clerics and knights, countryfolk, maids, widows, and
married women. The official verdict was established by the archbishop
and the count: that the prisoners be delivered to the stake, their property
to be confiscated by the bishop and the prince.® Now shone forth the
excellence of confession. For, as is reliably attested by those who were
in attendance, many persons who previously deserved punishment for
heresy escaped with their lives by the compassionate grace of God
through the ordeal of the hot iron and trial by water. In the town of
Ypres, twelve men were submitted to the ordeal of the hot iron, but by
this virtue of confession, all were delivered safely.

B. WALDENSES IN METZ

circa 1199-1200
Some years ago, in the time of Bishop Bertrand,7 a very learned man,
the Waldensian heresy appeared in Metz in the following way. On a
certain feast day, while preaching to the people in the cathedral, he
saw standing in the crowd two men, ministers of the devil, and he called
out: “I see the devil’s messengers among you and, pointing to them
Behold, there stand persons who in my presence were condemned for
heresy at Montpellier and banished.”8 The men answered the bishop
boldly, for they were accompanied by a scholar who barked at him like
a dog, heaping insults upon him. Then they left the church with a
258 Heresy in Northern Europe

throng gathered about them and preached their errors to the people.
When one of the clergy challenged them: “Masters, did not the Apostle
say, ‘How shall they preach unless they be sent’?9 We ask who sent you
here to preach,” they replied to him, “The Spirit.” Now the bishop
could not use force against them, since some important citizens en¬
couraged them out of hatred toward him, for he had exhumed from the
atrium of the church the body of a certain usurer, a relative of theirs.
Truly the men were sent by the spirit of error, and through their mouths
the Waldensian heresy, so called after one of the sect, was sown in this
city and has not since been entirely extinguished.10

44. The Amalricians

Among the narratives of popular heresies, we include here two documents
in which may be seen the origin and fate of a heretical group born, like
that at Orl6ans in 1022, in the intellectual climate of the schools. The heresy
was just beginning to spread to a wider audience when is was discovered.
Amalric of Bena lectured on the arts, especially logic, at Paris during the
last half of the twelfth century, and ultimately ventured into theology. After
his death he was condemned as a heretic, but there is still much uncertainty
about the cause of that judgment. It is probable that Amalric based his
teaching on the work of the ninth-century scholar, John Scotus Erigena, but
links between his ideas and Gnosticism or the contemporary apocalyptic
views of Joachim of Flora or the doctrines of the Beguins have been sug¬
gested by various investigators, as has the possible influence of Aristotelian
works which, with their Arabic commentaries, were reaching the West at
that time. Amalric died in 1206. A few years later a sect of heretics bearing
his name was discovered in Paris and in neighboring dioceses, professing
doctrines in which the strongest elements were apocalyptic prophecy and
pantheism. Although the Amalricians were ruthlessly dealt with at the time,
doctrines comparable to theirs reappeared in later years, among the Brethren
of the Free Spirit and in other movements.1
A recent sketch of the Amalricians in English is in Norman Cohn’s Pursuit
of the Millennium, pp. 156-61. The best treatment of their doctrines accom¬
panies Clemens Baumker’s edition of Contra Amaurianos, a thirteenth-
century tract against them, in his Ein anonymer, wahrscheinlich dem Game-
rius von Rochefort zugehoriger Traktat aus dem Anfang des XIII Jahr-
hunderts.*
Part A of the following is translated from Caesarii Heisterbacensis dia-
logus miraculorum v.xxii, ed. by Joseph Strange (2 vols., Cologne, 1851),
I, 304-7. Part B is from Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, ed. by Hein¬
rich Denifle and Emile Chatelain (4 vols., Paris, 1889-1897), I, 71-72, by
permission of Librairie Delalain.
44. The Amalricians 259
A. THE CONDEMNATION OF AMALRICIANS AT PARIS
1210
At the same time that the heresies of the Albigenses came to light, in
the city of Paris, wherein is a font of all knowledge and a well of Holy
Scripture, the blandishments of the devil instilled perverse understanding
into the minds of certain learned men. These are their names:3 Master
William of Poitiers, a subdeacon who lectured in the arts at Paris and
had studied theology for three years; Bernard, a subdeacon; William
the Goldsmith, their “prophet”; Stephen, a priest of Vieux-Corbeil;
Stephen, a priest of La Celle-Saint-Cloud; John, a priest of Orsigny—
except Bernard, these were all students of theology—Dudo, private
secretary of the priest Master Amalric, and one who had studied
theology for some ten years; Elinand, an acolyte; Odo, a deacon; Master
Guarin, who had come to Paris to study in the arts and, as a priest, had
studied theology there under Master Stephen, archbishop of Canter¬
bury;4 Ulrich, a priest of Lorris, a sexagenarian who had studied
theology for a long time; Peter of Saint-Cloud, a priest sixty years of
age, who also had studied theology; and Stephen, a deacon of Vieux-
Corbeil. At the devil’s instigation, these men had devised many great
heresies and had already diffused them in numerous places.
Novice: What were the categories in which men so advanced in
learning and age could have erred?
Monk: They said that in the bread on the altar the body of Christ
was present in exactly the same way as in other bread or in any other
thing, and that God spoke in the same way through Ovid as He did
through Augustine. They denied the resurrection of bodies and said that
there was no paradise or hell; one who possessed the knowledge of God,
as did they, had paradise within himself, but one who was in mortal
sin had hell within himself, like a decayed tooth in his mouth. They
said that to erect altars to the saints and to use incense before sacred
images was idolatry. They made mock of persons who kissed the bones
of martyrs. They dared to utter their worst blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit from whom comes all purity and holiness. If anyone was “in the
Spirit,” they said, even if he were to commit fornication or to be fouled
by any other filthiness, there would be no sin in him, because that
Spirit, who is God, being entirely distinct from the body, cannot sin.
Man, who is nothing, cannot sin so long as that Spirit, who is God, is
within him, for He “worketh all in all.”6 Whence they avowed that
260 Heresy in Northern Europe

each one of them was Christ and the Holy Spirit. In them was fulfilled
the statement of the Gospel: “There shall arise false Christs and false
prophets,”6 and so on. These wretches also had arguments of absolutely
no validity wherewith they sought to buttress their error.
Their infidelity was discovered in this way. William the Goldsmith,
whom we have mentioned, approached Master Ralph of Namur,7
saying that he had been sent by the Lord, and to him he propounded
the following points of unbelief: the Father has worked under certain
forms in the Old Testament, to wit, those of the Law; the Son likewise
has worked under certain forms, such as the Eucharist, baptism, and
the other sacraments. Just as the forms of the Law fell away with the
first coming of Christ, so now all the forms in which the Son has worked
will fall, and the sacraments will come to an end, because the person of
the Holy Spirit will clearly reveal himself in those in whom he is in¬
carnated. He will speak chiefly through seven men, of whom William
himself was one. William also prophesied that within five years these
four plagues would occur: first, one upon the people, who will be
destroyed by famine; the second will be the sword, by which the nobles
will kill each other; in the third, the earth will open and swallow up the
townspeople; and in the fourth, fire will come down upon the prelates
of the Church, who are members of Antichrist. For, he said, the pope
was Antichrist, Rome was Babylon; the pope himself reigns upon Mount
Olivet, that is, in the grossness of power. But thirteen years have gone
by and not one of the things has happened which that false prophet
predicted would happen within five years.
Also, in order to curry favor with King Philip of France,8 William
added this further prophecy: To the king of the French will all kingdoms
be made subject and to his son,9 who will live in the age of the Holy
Spirit and will not die.10 To the king of the French, twelve loaves shall
be given, which are the knowledge and power of the Scriptures.
Upon hearing this, Master Ralph inquired if the man had any asso¬
ciates to whom these revelations had been made. When he replied, “I
have many,” naming the men listed above, the worthy man realized the
imminent danger to the Church and that he alone was not capable of
investigating their wickedness and obtaining their conviction. He adopted
a kind of subterfuge in saying that a revelation from the Holy Spirit had
come to him in regard to a certain priest, who might preach their doc¬
trines with him.
44. The Amalricians 261
In order to keep his reputation unblemished, Master Ralph reported
the whole affair to the abbot of Saint-Victor,11 to Master Robert, and to
Brother Thomas. With them, he went to the bishop of Paris,12 and to
three masters who taught theology there—the dean of Salzburg, Master
Robert of Curson,15 and Master Stephen disclose all these things
them. Very much alarmed, these men instructed Ralph and the other
♦

priest for the remission of their sins to pretend to join the fellowship
until they had heard all their teaching and had searched out all the tenets
of their unbelief. In fulfillment of this task, Master Ralph and his
companion priest traveled for three months with those heretics through¬
out the dioceses of Paris, Langres, Troyes, and the province of Sens
and discovered many, indeed, of their sect.14 In order to persuade the
heretics to trust him completely, Master Ralph would sometimes, with
uplifted face, pretend that his soul was wafted to heaven. Afterward, in
their private meetings, he would recount some of the things he said he
had seen and would vow to preach their faith publicly, day in and day out.
At length he returned to the bishop to report on what he had seen
and learned, and on hearing this the bishop sent out for those persons
throughout his diocese, for, with the exception of Bernard, they lived
outside the city. Once they were in the bishop’s custody, neighboring
bishops and the masters of theology were assembled to examine them.
The statements mentioned above were read to them and, in the presence
of all, some of the persons defended them; others among them, however,
would have preferred to withdraw and realized that they were guilty, but
they stood fast with the former in the same perverse obstinacy and
would not retract.18 After the hearing had disclosed such perversity,
they were taken out to Les Champeaux by the advice of the bishops and
theologians, to be degraded in the presence of all the clergy and people,
and when the king returned—for he was absent at the time—they were
burned.1* Stubborn of will, they answered no questions, nor in them
could any indication of repentance be discerned at the very moment of
death. While they were being led to the torment, such a storm arose as
to leave no doubt that the atmosphere was troubled by the beings who
had fixed such error in the men who were about to die.
That very night the man who had been the chief figure among them
knocked at the door of a certain recluse and confessed his error, too
late. He declared that he was a chief tenant of hell and was doomed to
eternal flames.
262 Heresy in Northern Europe

Four of those who were examined were not burned, namely, Master
Guarin, the priest Ulrich, and the deacon Stephen—who were sentenced
to life imprisonment—and Peter, who before he was arrested had in
fright become a monk.17 The body of Master Amalric, who was the
leader in the aforesaid depravity, was exhumed from the cemetery and
buried in a field. At the same time, it was ordered at Paris that no one
should teach from the books on natural philosophy for three years.18
The writings of Master David and the theological works in the French
language1* were banned forever and burned. And so, by God’s grace,
the heresy was mowed down just as it was springing up.

B. THE ERRORS OF THE AMALRICIANS

In this m er they, who are creatures, detract from the Creator:

Sacred authority declares: “The works of the Trinity are indivisible.”
They, on the contrary, say, “The Father worked from the beginning
without the Son and the Holy Spirit, even to the incarnation of the Son.”
Again authority: “The Son alone was incarnate.” They, on the con¬
trary, “The Father was incarnate in Abraham, the Son in Mary, the
Holy Spirit is daily made incarnate in us.”
Again authority: “Everything under the sun is vanity.”20 They, on
the contrary, “All things are one, for whatever is, is God.” Whence one
of them, a man named Bernard, had the boldness to declare that he
could not be consumed on the pyre or hurt by other torment, whatever
it might be, since what was in him he called God.
Then: “God was endowed with visible means through which He could
be perceived by creatures and could be corrupted by extrinsic accidents.”
And so, led astray by this error, they sought to declare that the body of
Christ lay concealed in the visible accidents of the bread before the
pronouncement of the words, although authority says the opposite. “The
Word affects the element and the sacrament comes to exist.” This they
have explained as follows: “That which was there earlier is, by the
utterance of the words, shown to underlie the visible forms.”
Also: “The Son became incarnate, that is, was brought into visible
form.” Nor are they willing to recognize that that Man was God any
more than one of themselves.
Also, they say that the Holy Spirit, incarnate in them, revealed all
things to them, and this revelation was no other than the resurrection of
44. The Amalricians 263
the dead; whence they declare that they themselves are now risen from
the dead. In their hearts they deny a place to faith and hope, asserting
the falsehood that they are moved by knowledge alone.
Also, confident of merits, deprecating grace, they uttered the lie that
if they should unite in carnal intercourse with women of their own
status, the children would not be in need of the benefits of baptism.
Also: “The Son has worked up to now, but the Holy Spirit begins to
work from now on, even to the end of the world. ”
Four priests, two deacons, and three subdeacons were proved to have
wholly adopted this doctrine. They were degraded on November 14 at
the Church of St. Honore and, on the twentieth of that same month,
they departed this world in unhappy martyrdom. On account of these
facts, we have forbidden certain books, even to those whom we know to
be learned.
BLANK PAGE
 Heresy in the Thirteenth and Early
Fourteenth Centuries, 1216-1325

45. The Varieties of Heresy

The following excerpts from a chronicle and two polemical tracts, all written
at about the same time, show the diversity of currents in thirteenth-century
heresy. From a German chronicle comes comment on various groups
reported at Trier in 1231. Tenets of the Waldenses, Cathars, and other sects
may be recognized, and the rumor of nocturnal assemblies for devil-worship
is repeated, all prefaced by a narrative of the reckless and unrestrained
conduct of heresy hunters in Germany at that time. Of the two treatises
written in Italy from which excerpts are taken, one author was a layman,
the other a Dominican friar. Each regarded the Cathars as the greatest enemy
of the orthodox Church but also commented, although in somewhat less
il, on other contemporary sec among them
Waldenses. The layman, Salvo
antagonisms between the several branches of the Cathars. The testimony of
both authors is particularly valuable for the history of the Waldenses in
providing information on the events of 1205 and the following years, when
the Italian branch of the Waldensian movement broke away. The quarrel
had arisen, perhaps, from questions of administration and organization, but
soon was exacerbated by growing differences in doctrine.
Part A below is an account taken from one of the continuations of the
deeds of the Trier archbishops, from which the report on heresy at Ivoy
(our No. 10) also came. In part B are translated excerpts from the polemic
written in 1235 by Salvo Burci, a noble layman of Piacenza, against the
heretics who, emboldened by the turbulent political struggles there, plagued
his native city. In 1204 the bishop and the clergy had been driven into three
years of exile by the citizens’ violent protests against ecclesiastical authority,
and in ensuing years the clergy were drawn into the chronic struggle between
aristocratic and popular political parties. In 1230 heretics were executed in
the city, and in 1233 a special mission headed by the famous Dominican
preacher Roland of Cremona (who then bore the title of inquisitor) was
sent there by Gregory IX, only to be greeted at its first public appearance
by a deadly barrage of stones from the crowd. After a pontifical investiga¬
tion the blame was officially placed on heretics. Two years after this incident
Salvo Burci produced his book. No more is known of the author than is
told of him by the anonymous composer of the Prologue to the treatise.
266 From 1216 to 1325
who made a careful record of authorship and date of writing, and com¬
mented that Salvo Burci was not overskilled in letters. The author's style,
indeed, is vigorous, abrupt, and forceful rather than polished, but he had
a good command of the Scriptures, on which his refutation of heretical
errors rests. His familiarity with the heresies which he attacks so heatedly
is indisputable, and he wrote, we are told, particularly to answer a certain
heretical book, Stella [the star]; this was the reason for entitling his own
work Supra Stella [the higher star]. Presumably other documents were also
before him.1 Only part of the text of the Supra Stella has been edited.
Dollinger published excerpts taken at random from the sole extant manu¬
script.2 Ilarino da Milano studied the treatise and edited selected portions
describing heretical tenets and practices: “II ‘Liber supra Stella’ del piacen-
tino Salvo Burci contra i Catari e altre correnti ereticali,” Aevum, XVI
(1942), 272-319; XVII (1943), 90-146; XIX (1945), 218-341. This trans¬
lation is made from the text in the last installment of his article, and on his
study are also based the preceding comments.
Though there is less certainty about the authorship of the Summa contra
hereticos from which part C comes, the document is as informative as the
Supra Stella. There are persuasive arguments in favor of Peter of Verona
as author. Peter was born at the beginning of the thirteenth century of a
family involved in heresy, but he forsook that heritage to become a Domini¬
can friar. He was an active preacher for two decades before being chosen
as prior of the convents at Asti, Piacenza, and Como, successively, between
the years 1248 and 1251. In 1251 he was also appointed by Innocent IV
as inquisitor in Como and Milan. Peter had previously had close contact
with religious affairs in Milan—tradition produced stories of his ardent and
belligerent attacks on heresy there, although careful historical investigation
has not lent much support to these tales. His brief career as inquisitor was
cut short by assassination at the hands of some Catharist sympathizers
on April 6, 1252. Eleven months later (March 9, 1253) he was canonized
as St. Peter Martyr. His career has been studied by Antoine Dondaine, in
“Saint Pierre Martyr,” Archivum fratrum praedicatorum, XXIII (1953),
66-162; and there is a brief biography of him in Thurston and Attwater,
eds., Butler's Lives of the Saints, rev. ed., II, 186-87.
The summa attributed to Peter was written in 1235 or within two or three
years thereafter. It is a voluminous work—incomplete as now known in the
manuscripts and perhaps never finished by the author—in which is revealed
a considerable knowledge of the Cathars and other sects as well, knowledge
acquired through both personal experience and written sources. The refuta¬
tion of heretical errors is developed in a rational argument, supplemented
by extensive citation from the Scriptures and from writers such as St. Augus¬
tine and Aristotle. The only extended discussion of the summa is by Thomas
Kappeli in “Une Somme contre les heretiques de S. Pierre Martyr?” Archi¬
vum fratrum praedicatorum, XVII (1947), 295-355, where also are printed
various passages exposing the heretical tenets. Portions describing five sects
45. The Varieties of Heresy 267
other than the Cathars are translated here.
Part A is translated from Gesta Treverorum: Continuatio quarta, ed. by
Georg Waitz, in Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, XXIV, 400-2,
by permission of Anton Hiersemann Verlag and the Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Part B is translated from the previously cited article of Ilarino da
Milano, pp. 307-8, 309, 316-17, 327, 328, 336-37, by permission of the
University cattolica del S. Cuore; and part C comes from the article by
Kappeli, pp. 331-35, by permission of the Istituto storico domenicano di
S. Sabina.

A. HERETICAL SECTS IN TRIER

1231
In the year of our Lord 1231 began a persecution of heretics through¬
out the whole of Germany, and over a period of three years many were
burned. The guiding genius of this persecution was Master Conrad of
Marburg;3 his agents were a certain Conrad, surnamed Tors, and John,
who had lost an eye and a hand. Both of these were said to have been
converted heretics.4 It is this Master Conrad who, renowned for active
preaching, especially in behalf of the crusades, had built up a great
following among the people; who interfered in the visitation of clergy
and nuns and sought to constrain them to strict observance and con¬
tinence; and who, supported by apostolic authority and endowed with
firmness of purpose, became so bold that he feared no one—not even a
king or a bishop, who rated no higher with him than a poor layman.
Throughout various cities the Preaching Friars [Dominicans] cooperated
with him and with his afore-mentioned lieutenants; so great was the zeal
of all that from no one, even though merely under suspicion, would any
excuse or counterplea be accepted, no exception or testimony be ad¬
mitted, no opportunity for defense be afforded, nor even a recess for
deliberation be allowed. Forthwith, he must confess himself guilty and
have his head shaved as a sign of penance, or deny his crime and be
burned.
Furthermore, one who has thus been shaved must make known his
associates, otherwise he again risks the penalty of death by burning.
Whence it is thought that some innocents have been burned, for many,
because of love of earthly existence or out of affection for their heirs,
confessed themselves to have been what they were not and, constrained
to make accusation, brought charges of which they were ignorant against
those to whom they wished ill. Indeed, it was finally discovered that
268 From 1216 to 132b

heretics instigated some of their number to permit themselves to be

shaved in penance and thus to accuse Catholics and the innocent. Of
such three were taken at Mainz; thereafter there was no one so pure of
conscience as not to fear meeting a calamity of this sort. For no one
dared, I will not say to intercede for the accused, but even to make the
mildest observation in their behalf, for he would immediately be con¬
sidered a defender of heretics. And, indeed, in accordance with the
decision pronounced by the lord pope,5 he [Conrad] proceeded against
defenders and receivers of heretics exactly as against heretics them¬
selves. Furthermore, if anyone had once abjured this impiety and was
reported to have relapsed, he was apprehended and without any recon¬
sideration was burned.
Nor was the diocese of Trier free from this infection.6 For in the city
of Trier itself three groups of heretics were uncovered. There was
burned a certain Leuchard, who was reputed to have been of a most
saintly life, but who bewailed with dreadful laments the unjust banish¬
ment from heaven of Lucifer, whom she wished again restored to
heaven.7 Nor was it surprising that such occurrences happened in other
cities, since in Rome itself, according to a letter from the pope,8 not a
few had been thus infected. There were a large number in this sect.
Many of them were versed in the Holy Scriptures, which they had in
German translation. Some, indeed, performed a second baptism; some
did not believe in the sacrament of the Lord’s body; some held that the
body of the Lord could not be consecrated by evil priests; some said that
the body of the Lord could be consecrated with salver and chalice in
any place whatsoever, equally well by a man or a woman, whether
ordained or not; some judged confirmation and extreme unction to be
superfluous; some scorned the supreme pontiff, the clergy, and the
monastic life; some denied the value of prayers of the Church for the
souls of the dead; some took their own mothers in marriage, making
amends for the consanguinity that existed by the payment of eighteen
pence; some kissed a pallid man or even a cat, and performed still
worse acts; some, believing all days to be the same, refused to keep
holidays or fasts, and thus worked on feast days and ate meat on Good
Friday. Let this suffice as a catalogue of their errors, not that we have
listed them all but only noted the most outstanding.
At that time the archbishop of Trier convened a synod in which he
publicly announced that the heretics in his diocese had a bishop, to
45. The Varieties of Heresy 269
whom they had given his own name, Theodoric, and that others did the
same elsewhere after the bishops of other places; and he also announced
that they shared in common a pope,9 whom they called Gregory after
the bishop of the Church Universal, so that, should they be questioned
about the faith, they could say that they had the same faith as did Pope
Gregory and bishop so-and-so (giving the name of the bishop), naming
our bishop and meaning theirs.10
Three heretics were cited before this synod, of whom two were re¬
leased and one burned.11

B. SALVO BURCI ON DISSENT AMONG HERETICS

1235
THE HIGHER STAR

Here begins the Prologue to the book against all heretics, entitled
The Higher Star9 which was composed and prepared by a certain noble¬
man, Salvo Burci, of the city of Piacenza.
In the name of Christ, amen. Sunday, May 6, 1235, eighth indiction,
in the house of Monachus of Cario.12
Although the date on which this book entitled The Higher Star was
composed is recorded here, that is, when its preparation was first under¬
taken, let no one be surprised to encounter the same in subsequent
pages. We have entered the date here for no reason other than to allow
one the more readily to know the time when it was begun.
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to set forth in order narratives
of the things which, we believe, have been fully discussed in this book,13
we must warn the copyist and the reader of the need for careful atten¬
tion to its words, for we know that herein are many matters difficult to
understand, many things that lie hidden between the lines. By poring
over these, the assiduous reader will find the heretics and their errors
exposed and refuted, with the result that he will not be deluded by any
of their wiles. Not without reason do we entitle the book The Higher
Star9 for as a star guides the course of seafarers and leads them to
harbor, so this book charts the course of true faith and guides toward
the haven of salvation. Moreover, it is entitled The Higher Star to
distinguish it from a certain heretical work which has already been given
the title The Star, a name derived from the star called Wormwood in
the Apocalypse.14 The name The Higher Star is well chosen. For this
one, rising, proclaims one God, creator of all, above all; the other.
270 From 1216 to 1325

assuredly declining toward the pit of error, babbles nonsense about two
opposing gods. This one teaches truth, that one falsehood. This book
was produced by the efforts of a certain layman, noble but not skilled
in letters, a native of Piacenza, Salvo by name, moreover an emissary of
the Savior, Jesus Christ. Surely it was meet for the Savior and Salvo to
be associated in this book.
Separate chapters are marked off herein as far as possible. As far as
possible, I say, because in places there is a lack of order or systematic
arrangement, and quite often a topic is treated in a chapter devoted to
some other subject. This occurred, however, because the cunning of the
heretics made it necessary. For since they avoid the path of truth
instead of searching for it, they shift from one subject to several others
and from several to one; as a result, a reply to each point is needful. .. .

Here begins the book against all heretics, entitled The Higher Star. ...
Against the Cathars who are called Albanenses and the Concorez-
zenses, who disagree sharply so that each damns the other to the death,
the Albanenses maintaining against the Concorezzenses that they them¬
selves are the Church of God, that the Concorezzenses were once
associated with them, having broken away from us; the Concorezzenses
in turn making a counteraccusation of like nature.
It is well known that Albanenses and Concorezzenses have met
together many times and have often taken counsel together to discuss
how they might agree on one faith, both Albanenses and Concorezzenses
seeking—for the sake of the believers of both sects, among whom a
sense of scandal was being aroused by what was preached—to find a
compromise in their teaching. In this hope of bringing themselves back
to a common faith, they spent heavily on many different journeys,
traveling now here, now there, on the face of the earth. And some say
[the same is true] of the Cathars called Caloianni and also the Fran-
cigene,15 who, in general, do not share the beliefs of the Albanenses or
the Concorezzenses. But although they could not come to an agreement,
they made the attempt and sought, to the limit of their ability, to have
both sects combine in a coinTnlon faith,
* 1
admittingw that
.. their Church
suffered from the scandal of their disunity, as a consequence of which
many of their believers have come back to the Roman Church. Al¬
though, as we have said, they met together many times, they achieved
no harmony. For each sought mastery for their group, but violent
45. The Varieties of Heresy 111
quarrels persisted within both parties, and every individual is sorely
affected by the great discord. Whence it is obvious that they are not the
Church of God, for here is what one finds in the Bible: “Every kingdom
divided against itself shall be brought to desolation.”16 It is, therefore,
clear that they are the church of the devil. For originally they were
members of the Roman Church by baptism, nor can they deny that.
But the Holy Mother Roman Church was the first Church, wherefore it
is indubitably the Church of God. We have recounted something of how
the heretics met together in the past....

Chapter IX: On the Poor among the Heretics

O Poor Leonists and Poor Lombards and you Speronists!17 You can
plainly see that those who are called Cathars have been convicted of
heresy by the arguments of this book and out of the New Testament,
for they hold depraved views on matrimony and very many other
matters. And although you may not be in such profound heresy as the
heretics who are called Cathars, heretics you are, nonetheless. For you
are cut off from the Holy Roman Church, from which you received
baptism and confirmation, those two sacraments by which man becomes
Christian and receives the Holy Spirit. For that reason, then, we pro¬
pose to say certain things against you... ,18
For it is an evident fact that the Cathars were once part of the
Roman Church and in that faith received baptism and confirmation and
the other sacraments, and in it they remained for a time. But they left it.
And against that Church they make ever more blasphemous statements
which arise from their fatuous discernment—whatever occurs to them—
declaring the Church to be a harlot, a den of serpents, a beast. And you
stupid people say the same things. Now notice that the Apostle said
“some,”19 by which word he gives us to understand that those who have
broken away are few, or virtually nothing by comparison with those who
remain. Give even more heed to the fact that the Cathars are not to be
termed “some” in comparison with you, but, on the contrary, you are
almost nonexistent when compared to them, they being much more
numerous throughout the world than you are. And the Cathars are
virtually nothing in comparison with those among whom they once
were numbered, that is, the members of the Roman Church. Therefore,
you can perceive that you are not the Church of God and hence your
labor is in vain. Also, recall your belief that the congregation and the
272 From 1216 to 1325

Church of the Old Testament was God-given, because He led them out
of Egypt, and gave them the Law, and was with them, and led them
through the desert. In this respect your belief is correct... .20
Sunday, May 6, 1235, the eighth indiction, in the house of Monachus
of Cario. It is evident that the Church of God existed from the apostles
to this day and shall exist from now until the end, and that in the Church
of God there must be bishops, priests, deacons, provosts, and so on.
Waldes (Valdexius), who came from Lyons, was your leader, but before
Waldes you had no head but the Roman Church; this was about sixty
years ago. Many of those men who were his disciples are still alive, and
Waldes himself was a member of the Roman Church. How, then, can
you believe that the Church did not exist before the time of Waldes?
You are stupid! Speroni was the head of the Speronists and that was
about fifty years ago. The Poor Lombards broke off from the Poor of
Lyons and that occurred about thirty years ago. John of Ronco21 who
was one of their elders, took the lead. He was an ignorant man, without
education. Therefore, you can realize that you are stupid and your labor
is in vain... .22
Also, pay good attention to the date recorded above. Why? Because,
if you were wise, you would see very well how new you are. That was
the reason for setting down the date, so that you might recognize your
novelty, Waldes the Leonist, and Hugo Speroni, and John of Ronco,
these three were the first heads of your congregations, but in the case
of John of Ronco this was thirty years ago, of Hugo Speroni, indeed,
about fifty, and of Waldes, about sixty years ago. Therefore, you can
recognize your stupidity. So hold your tongues, and speak no more
against the Holy Roman Church....
O heretics, well may you be in terror of those things a Catholic says!
The Concorezzenses, who are called Cathars, believe in a God who is
good. The Albanenses, who are called Cathars, hold that he is evil.
There can be no greater difference. The Poor Leonists and the Poor
Lombards are set apart from each other. These four sects are as dif¬
ferent, each from the other, as fire from water, and one damns the
other to the death. Each among them calls himself a disciple of Christ,
and if any of them die, they are called Christian martyrs. Therefore,
you can see how great is your dread. Why? Suppose one to be saved;
then the others are damned. Great ought to be your fear-
O Poor Lombards! You were once members of the Roman Church.
45. The Varieties of Heresy 273
and with them you were under the governance of Waldes,23 staying for
some time under his rule. Afterward, you chose another leader and
gave offense to Waldes and the Poor Leonists. He was John of Ronco
and I knew him. And for several years you taught just what the Poor
Leonists were teaching, asserting that you had no quarrel with them,
but now there is the greatest discord between you two. Also, you say
that flesh is bom of flesh and spirit of spirit,24 and yet you assert that a
husband, against his will, may be separated from his wife, or wife from
husband.29 You say that you are authorized to do this by the text of
Matthew: “And everyone that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake,
shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.”26...
O Albanenses, O Concorezzenses, O Bagnolenses! There are and
ought to be seven sacraments in the Church of God, without which it
is not nor can it be the Church of God. One is baptism in actual water,
which has been defended in this book. The second is confirmation; the
third, the breaking of bread; the fourth, unction with oil; the fifth, the
instructions by one’s prelate as to penance; the sixth, ordination of
priests and bishops; the seventh, lawful matrimony. Of these seven, you
have but two, which are the imposition of hands27 and the breaking of
bread. But you, particularly you Albanenses, do not lay much emphasis
upon the breaking of bread, because the actual bread which you break
is not made better or worse thereby, nor is he who receives and eats that
bread the better or worse for it. Now I ask: Why do you do this,
especially you Albanenses? Perhaps the Albanenses and heretics will say
in reply: “The Lord Jesus Christ at the Last Supper took bread and
broke it and gave to his disciples, saying, ‘Take ye and eat. This is my
body,’ ”28 and so on. He said, “Do this for a commemoration of me.”29
I answer: If the bread which He took was created by the devil or by the
evil god, it is inconceivable that He ever would have broken it and given
it to His disciples, and He would not have blessed it. You stupid
people declare and affirm that it was made and created by the evil god
or by the devil. Yet you perform the ceremony of breaking bread. O
heretics! How well even dullards may see that you are the worst of
heretics!
O Albanenses, O Concorezzenses, O Bagnolenses! One finds in the
New Testament that there ought to be bishops, priests, deacons, and
provosts in the Church of God. This terminology is used in the Church
of God. Your terms include “bishops”; “elder sons”; “younger sons”;
274 From 1216 to 1325

and “deacons.”30 Let us suppose that the terms “elder son” and
“younger son” do not prove you are in error. Where is the name of
priest? The title “priest,” which is wanting among you, is found in many
passages of the New Testament. Therefore, it does not seem that you
are of the Church of God.
O Albanenses, O Concorezzenses, O Bagnolenses! It does not appear
that you repent of your sins, past, present, or future, either with inward
or with visible tears, with prayer or without it. You seem not to know
divine love—which is the very worst of torments. In the Church of God,
one sees that when men sin, they feel contrition for their sins. Thus,
when Peter sinned and denied Christ under oath, it is recorded that he
* *

“wept bitterly” for his sin.31 Note the word “bitterly”; that means with
the utmost sorrow. Yet this you do not do. Why? Because you do not
know the perfect divine love, you mourn not. Also, in the Gospel:
“Blessed are they that mourn,”32 meaning that they who sincerely
repent of their sins shall be blessed. Take heed of the Magdalen, who
was a great harlot. When Jesus took food in the house of Simon, she
washed His feet with tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head.33
O miserable ones! It appears, indeed, that she sincerely repented of her
sins, for He sent the mercy of God into her heart and mind. And no one
may call it a spiritual mourning. Why? Because Simon was not a spiritual
being but a carnal man; therefore, he did not perceive spiritual things
but actually observed the Magdalen’s behavior, because he said, “This
man, if he were a prophet, would not suffer her to approach him, for
she is a harlot.”34 Therefore, you have it plainly stated that the Mag¬
dalen literally did these things. O you sneaks! You deal most slightingly
with human bodies after death. You lay them secretly in pits here and
there, as best you can. This was not done with Christ’s body, which was
composed of the four elements. You may say it was a spiritual body,
but take note to the contrary, that it was buried according to the Jewish
rite. Hence you may clearly apprehend that it was a material body, for
the Jews were not spiritual beings, but flesh and blood, and they per¬
formed burials in the earthly sense, as with the body of Christ....

C. FIVE MINOR SECTS IN ITALY

1235-1238
[Book 1I\
... 23. We have already discussed in the preceding book the errors
45. The Varieties of Heresy 275
in which only the Patarines or Cathars are found to go astray. Now in
this second book we shall speak of the particular damages done by five
other heresies, which are those of the Predestinarians, the Circumcisers^
the Speronists, the Poor Leonists, and the Rebaptizers.
Because the Predestinarians, among all other heretics, are second
only to the Patarines in the seriousness of their deviation, we will start
with a discussion of them next in sequence to the section on the latter.
Here we seek first to know why they are called Predestinarians, how
many kinds of Predestinarians there are, on what articles of faith they
err, and what the origin of their errors was; thereafter we will disprove
their ravings following the method adopted above.
Now, they are called Predestinarians because they say that all things
happen just as preordained or predestined—not because they them¬
selves are predestined to life but are rather, I fear, for the most part set
down to death. There are, moreover, four types of Predestinarians. For
there are some who say that all good things are preordained by the good
God, all evil things whatsoever by the devil. This error they took from
Simon Magus85 and the Manichaeans, who, it is recorded, had spread
this wickedness. But others in their folly say that all things here below,
even the soul itself while it is clothed with flesh, are controlled by the
motion and course of the stars and other superior bodies; also, they add
that the world is eternal, that Adam was not the first man. They seem
to have gotten this error chiefly from the words of Aristotle, as will
become clear from their assertions in a subsequent passage.36 Some of
these persons, indeed, say that God sometimes alters the sort of effect
that should proceed from the nature of superior bodies. A third type of
Predestinarian consists of those who assert that all things, good and evil,
are preordained by the good principle, that is, by God. The fourth
group consists of those who blasphemously say that neither angels nor
the souls of men have existence after this life has come to an end. The
Sadducees were the first authors of this stupidity;37 it was later amended
by a certain individual named Arabs,38 who, with his followers, spread
the dogma that the soul’s existence ended with that of the flesh. And
another individual named Zeno, and his disciples, further added that a
short interval after the flesh is destroyed so also will be the soul.89 These
Predestinarians, who may properly be called “the hopeless ones,”40 say
that all things from eternity follow this course and that at the end of a
year which they call the Great Year—which they say comprises thirty
276 From 1216 to 1325
thousand or fifteen thousand ordinary years—they will be restored. A
multitude of these hopeless ones are found in the city of Sodom.41
It was incumbent upon us first to consider the beliefs of the Pre-
destinarians which are accepted by the Patarines, thus bringing together
all that is peculiar to them; our refutation will be made by solid reason¬
ing as well as the Holy Scriptures.
24. Of the Particular Errors of the Circumcisers,42 Who Seem to Err
More Seriously than Other Heretics.—Let us now examine the partic¬
ular errors of the Circumcisers, who seem to err more seriously than
other heretics known to us, with the exception of the Patarines and the
Predestinarians. For they assert that circumcision and the sacraments
of the Old Law must be observed to the letter equally with the sacra¬
ments of the New Law.
25. On the Errors of the Speronists, of Which There Are Three
Particularly Their Own.—We come now to the errors of the Speronists,
of which there are three particularly their own. The first is that all men
bear the sin of Adam only in the flesh, not in the soul. The second is
that before the advent of Christ, good men ascended into glory. And
they share with the Patarines, moreover, an error about the sacrament
of the Eucharist, a matter which we discussed in Book I. They also
share the common errors which we shall presently discuss in Book III.43
These heretics derive from a former judge of Piacenza who was named
Speroni, hence they are called Speronists, and they came into existence
at the very same time as the Poor Leonists, although they are their
opposite in manner of life, for the Leonists exist on alms, without
property, and unmarried. These persons, on the contrary, own property
and marry. We will refute their three particular errors from Holy
Scripture.
26. On the Poor Leonists, Whose Particular Errors Are Four.—
What follows concerns the Poor Leonists, whose particular errors are
four, namely, that it is permissible for any good man to minister and
perform the sacraments, that no one who owns property or who labors
in worldly affairs can be saved, nor can one who fulfills the carnal
obligations of matrimony. They fell into this fourth error in recent times.
For some sixty years this heresy has been spreading; it had its rise with
Waldes in the city of Lyons on the Rhone, whence these persons are
called Lyonists or Leonists. These Poor Leonists originated within the
45. The Varieties of Heresy 277
Roman Church but subsequently were led by pride into contumacy and,
being excommunicated, lapsed into many errors and later on split into
two groups. The aforesaid Waldes was made the heresiarch of one; John
of Roncarola (Runcharola), who was a native of Piacenza, of the other.
The former are called the Ultramontane Poor, the latter the Lombards.
A schism has arisen between them, the Ultramontanes believing that
there are many good men in the Roman Church and that an evil priest
or prelate fulfills his office, which the Lombards deny. The Lombards
subsequently split into two groups at a certain council which convened
in the region of Milan. This schism arose over an incident involving a
large goblet of wine which was knocked over by a fowl. The aforesaid
John had consecrated the wine in his own fashion after women of the
sect had trodden it out under their very feet. At the sight, some of them
indignantly cried out that no one could consecrate the body and blood
of Christ unless he were a priest ordained by the Roman Church. These
persons were called “those of the meadow,” but their party has entirely
disappeared.44
However, some of these Poor Leonists, drawn from among the
Ultramontanes and the Lombards as well, were converted to the Catholic
Church at the same time as Bernard Prim.45 They were called the
Reconciled Poor. Later on, on the advice of the supreme pontiff, they
entered orders of our Church. Some of them continue piously to this
day in our order, others are asleep in the Lord.
There are also other errors common to the aforesaid heretics, which
we will take up below in Book III, where the discussion centers on the
Roman Church, the oath, civil power, and the like. In the present sec¬
tion we will rebut their particular errors, which are the first three we
listed above; the fourth, on matrimony, has already been refuted in
Book 1....
27. On the Rebaptizers, Whose Particular Error Is to Baptize a
Second Time.—We come now to the Rebaptizers, whose particular
error is to baptize a second time. Their heresy arose at the same time
as that of the Leonists... .40 Note that these Rebaptizers also have other
errors peculiar to themselves, which are that during his whole lifetime
a man need fast for no more than one Lent, and others of a similar sort
which I have not bothered to include here. There were several other
heresies which appeared at the same time as those just described,
278 From 1216 to 1325
namely, the Arnaldones, the Corrucani, the Milui, the Levantes, the
Cappelleti} and the like. Since they have been wholly rooted out in our
own time, I have not bothered to waste paper on them.47

46. Dissent between the Poor Lombards

and the Poor of Lyons
The origins of the schism which in 1205 divided the Italian Waldenses from
their French comrades are known only from the comments of orthodox
writers (see No. 45, parts B and C), but to the Waldenses themselves we
owe a report of an attempt to heal that breach. The conference described
here took place in 1218; the letter which we translate was probably written
soon thereafter1 but has been deferred to this place so that these translations
may carry the story in proper sequence. The Italian faction, the Poor
Lombards—they refer to themselves as the Poor, the Poor in Spirit, and the
Italian Brethren—wrote to some Waldenses in Germany to describe a con¬
ference between themselves and the Poor of Lyons, whom they call the
Ultramontanes, the comrades of Waldes, and the Waldenses.2 Since there is
no mention of John of Ronco, it may be presumed that he was dead; in
1218 leadership of the Poor Lombards was vested in the twelve persons who
prepared this letter in the name of their “society” or “brotherhood.” Waldes,
too, had died before 1218, and the French group entrusted its common
affairs to two persons, elected annually.3
The initiative toward healing the schism had come from the Italians, and
preliminary negotiations had posed the problems which were to be resolved
at a conference: These involved differing views on the terms of office for
officials; on the relationship between the brethren and the lay communities
of workers, which were of long standing in Italy4 although they had been
denounced by Waldes; on the efficacy of baptism in water, the causes for
which married persons might separate, and the question of disciplining
individuals of either group whose opinions offended members of the other;
and on the Lombards’ insistence that they be allowed to disagree about the
scriptural sanction for certain practices, without fear of coercion.5 A com¬
promise solution to these questions had already been attempted by written
exchange of views before six negotiators from each side met in the vicinity
of Bergamo in May, 1218, for further discussion. They were able to reach
final agreement on the problems so far enumerated. But then two further
issues appeared and the differences on them proved irreconcilable. Were
Waldes and his companion Vivetus in paradise? That they were was for the
Poor of Lyons an article of belief, but the Lombards felt able to accept the
doctrine only conditionally. More important was the disagreement over the
sacrament of the Eucharist. For the Ultramontanes the moral character of
the priest had no effect on the transformation of bread and wine into the
bodv and blood of Christ. But the Lombards, though admitting that they
46. Poor Lombards and Poor of Lyons 279
had once believed otherwise, held that the celebrant himself must be worthy.
Over these two questions arguments in speech and writing were exchanged
■

until the conference broke up in disagreement. The Italian community then

sent their account of the event to their German friends. ►

This letter, first edited by Preger, has been several times reprinted.
Muller re-examined the manuscripts and suggested emendations of Preger’s
text in his Die Waldenser (pp. 22-23). Giovanni Gonnet, reprinting the
letter in his Enchiridion fontium Valdensium (pp. 169-83), annotates it with
the corrections proposed by Muller and the variants found in an edition in
Dollinger, Beitrdge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, II, 42-52, and adds
a short bibliography (p. 183). It is translated here from Wilhelm Preger,
“Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldesier im Mittelalter,” Abhandlungen der
historischen Classe der koniglich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
XIII (Munich, 1877), 234-41.

1218
To the honor of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.
[1] Otto de Ramezello, by grace of God, confrater of the Poor in
Spirit,6 J[ohn] de Sarnago, Thaddeus, Marinus, G. de Papia, L. de
Leganio, G. de Moltasio, J. de Mutina, J[ohn] Franceschus, Jordan de
Dogno, Bononius, and Thomas7 send wishes for health in true whole¬
someness and for the steadfastness of eternal love to our beloved
brothers and sisters, our friends of both sexes who live in piety beyond
the Alps.8
[2] It behooves the keen and prudent mind to abandon that which is
hurtful, flee that which is transitory, pursue that which is pure, and
grasp that which is firm. “We give thanks to our God in every remem¬
brance of you, always in our prayers making supplication for you all
with joy for your communication in the Gospel of Christ from the first
day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who hath
begun a good work in you will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus.
As it is meet for us to think this for you all, for that we have you in our
hearts, and in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel you are all
partakers of our joy. For God is our witness how we long after you in
the bowels of Jesus Christ. And this we pray, that your charity may
more and more abound in all knowledge and in all understanding, that
you may show forth better things, that you may be sincere and without
offense unto the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of justice, through
Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.”9
[3] Brothers, we wish you to know of the result we were able to
280 From 1216 to 1325

achieve some time ago, in the month of May, 1218, near Bergamo, in
the dispute which for long has existed between us and the chosen ultra¬
montane comrades of Waldes, after each party had exchanged a number
of inquiries with the other.
[4] Now, at first we had raised one particular question about leader¬
ship, of which this is the substance: “We ask you, ultramontane brothers,
first of all about something which we have heard Waldes said, to wit,
that he did not desire to have anyone chosen as the head of the ultra¬
montane brothers or of the Italian brothers during his lifetime or after
his death. Do you or do you not wish to abide by this rule without
taking from or adding to it?” To this they made answer by presenting
a certain spurious document, forged by a certain Brother Massarius10 in
the city of Verona. In this document appear the words: “And as a
community to choose provosts and rectors.” They added what we take
to be a straightforward affirmation, without obscurity: that our com¬
munity and theirs, gathered together—so it was stated—into one single
community, may jointly choose either provosts for life or rectors for a
set term, in the light of what may seem more expedient to the com¬
munity or may produce the greater harmony. This, as stated, was the
Ultramontane reply on the question of leadership.
[5] They then replied to our question about the ministerial order, the
substance of which is this: “In the second place, we ask what your
sentiments are and what position you wish to take on ordination, or on
the ministerial order.” Just as before, they gave a reply that was put
forth in the afore-mentioned false document: “And as a community thus
to choose ministers, either for life or for a set term, to oversee the
affairs of recent converts or of friends who continue their life in the
world, in the light of what may seem more expedient to the community
or may produce the greater harmony.” This, as we have said, was the
Ultramontane reply on the question of the ministry.
[6] Then we had raised a question regarding an association of work¬
ing people, of which the following is the substance: “Thirdly, we inquire
about something which Waldes is reported to have said, that although
in all things else there might be harmony and concord between him and
the Italian brothers, they could have no peace with him unless they
severed the relationship with the associations of working people which
prevailed at that time in Italy, so that there would no longer be any
connection of one with the other. Do you or do you not wish to abide
46. Poor Lombards and Poor of Lyons 281
by this statement without taking from or adding to it?” The reply of the
Ultramontanes to this inquiry was read, among other things, from that
same oft-mentioned deceptive tract. “If any person wishing to continue
to live by worldly toil, seeks guidance from the Poor, let guidance be
given him according to God and His law, whether the person wishes to
live alone or join with other persons.”
[7] As we have said, the ultramontane comrades of Waldes gave the
foregoing written answers to the questions stated above. They added
certain other comments on the question of an association of working
people, to which we sent the following reply: “We seek wholly to excise
all the blemishes which the ultramontane brothers have specifically
mentioned to us Italians and likewise any others, if any there be, in the
matter of an association of working people, with this stipulation: We
humbly urge upon them the concession that the said laboring folk, by
the common counsel and concord of each society, may continue to exist
to the honor of God.” Thus we were mutually agreed on these three
major issues over which there had once been dissension; and if we
might come to be of the same mind on all other matters, no dispute at
all—this we have heard from them and they from us—would remain
between us and them, provided, however, that they would ratify their
words by deeds and give effect to that which one reads in the con¬
cluding passage of a certain affidavit which they handed to us and
which they have promised. We seek from them the three things de¬
scribed above11 and desire to act straightforwardly and without ob¬
scurity toward them according to God and His law, putting aside all
quarrel and controversy.
[8] Furthermore, we gave this answer to a particular inquiry of theirs
about baptism: “We declare that no one who rejects the actual baptism
of water can be saved; indeed, we do not believe that unbaptized
children can be saved. We pray that they accept and acknowledge this
belief.”
[9] Replying to another particular question of theirs, on matrimony,
we said: “We believe that no one ought to put asunder persons joined
in legitimate marriage, except by reason of fornication, or with the
assent of each party;12 we beseech our ultramontane brothers to accept
and acknowledge this belief.”
[10] On the other hand, to the inquiry of the Ultramontanes about the
282 From 1216 to 1325

wish is that, if the ultramontane brothers bring charges against Brother

Thomas or any other of our companions, Thomas himself and the
others should present and receive explanation according to God and
His law. Let the Ultramontanes be prepared to allow him this, on their
own behalf and on behalf of any other of their comrades. Brother
Thomas requests and prays for the same.”13
On these matters, the reply of the Ultramontanes was:
[11] “With reference to our questions about baptism, we assert our
belief that no one can be saved unless he shall have actually been
baptized in water.
[12] “In regard to legitimate marriage, we say that it may not be dis¬
solved without the consent of each party, unless a rightful motive shall
arise, of which the community shall be the judge.
[13] “In regard to the statement about Thomas and John Franci-
genas,14 or any other person, that he may be separated from the society
for particular reasons, we say that they may justify themselves to our
society according to God and His law, and our society may act toward
them and accept explanation from them according to God and His law.”
Such, as stated, was the substance of the answers of the ultramontane
comrades of Waldes on the subjects of baptism and matrimony, and in
regard to Thomas or any other of our comrades at odds with their
congregation, or any of them at odds with ours for particular reasons.
Therefore, in these matters we were in mutual agreement on the basis
of the aforesaid profession of each party, just as we have described it in
regard to the preceding subjects, that is, as we have already remarked,
if their statements are put into effect.
[14] In regard to a particular inquiry of ours, the substance of
which is this: “We raise a question about any particular custom or belief
of yours, one which you cannot prove by Holy Scripture that the Church
of Christ has held or ought to hold, whether or not you wish to abide
by it and force us to adopt the same?” Should their reply be sincere—
and its substance is this: “We say that we do not take this position nor
do we wish to use coercion against them”—if, we repeat, this response
of theirs (we mean of the ultramontane comrades of Waldes) should be
sincere, we believe no doubt at all remains that we and they now have
a basis for solid peace and sound agreement between us.
[15] However, whether or not their reply was sincere the discreet
reader and auditor may by the help of God determine from the follow-
46. Poor Lombards and Poor of Lyons 283
ing account. For when still another of their questions was presented in
M

regard to Waldes and Vivetus,15 now deceased, we answered: “Waldes

and Vivetus may have attained salvation, if before their death they made
amends before God for all their sins and offenses.” This response the
aforesaid Ultramontanes flatly rejected. There were six of them, whose
names were Peter de Relana and Berengar de Aquaviva (these two at
that time were charged with conduct of affairs for the year, in accord¬
ance with their custom), G. de Cerviano,16 G. Turantus, Optandus de
Bonate, and Julian. They, as they informed us, were by common
counsel of their society meeting with an equal number of our brothers,
whose names are John de Sarnago, Thaddeus, Thomas, Manfred, John
Franceschus, and Jordan de Dogno, to seek harmony with us. One of
their number, Peter de Relana, stood up in the presence of their
brothers and ours as we have named them and among other things made
the bald assertion: “We hold that Waldes is in paradise.” And he went
on to say that if we refused to make the same declaration about Waldes
that they did, never could they come to agreement with us.
[16] This is one of the two matters in which disagreement still
persists between us and the comrades of Waldes. The other is the
question of breaking bread, or the sacrament, about which, as we have
been informed, there are three different views among the Ultramontanes.
One of these beliefs, as some of the comrades of Waldes state it, is
this: that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the
body and blood of Christ solely through the utterance of the words of
God. They explained: “We attribute this power not to man but to the
words of God.” Against these persons we must raise the objection that
if the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and
blood of Christ solely through the utterance of God’s words, then, ac¬
cording to their statement, anyone, Jew or Gentile, who pronounces the
words of God over the bread and wine may consecrate the body and
blood of Christ. This is a wicked thing to say, for it can never be proved
by any valid text or argument. To the attempt made by some to corrob¬
orate that opinion by adducing the text of the Apostle, “For it is
sanctified by the word of God and prayer,”17 we reply that the Apostle
does not support their mistake but rather destroys and refutes it, for in
the text cited the Apostle spoke of foodstuffs, not of the sacrament, and
not only stipulated “by the word of God” but also added “by prayer.”
Whether or not their prayer is of any value for consecration will
284 From 1216 to 1325

presently be made plain in the following remarks, God willing.

[17] The second statement of some of the comrades of Waldes on the
subject of breaking bread is this: “No one can perform baptism who is
not worthy to consecrate the body of Christ.” It seems necessary to
protest to them that, in accordance with their statement, they must
perforce admit either that the body of Christ may be consecrated not
only by laymen and evildoers but also by women, even harlots, or that
no one may ever have valid baptism from such persons. Each of these
statements, the one that the body of Christ may be consecrated by
laymen, that is, by unordained persons, and the other, that no one can
be baptized by such persons, is quite in contradiction to the profession
of those who,18 as we have already said, forgathered by common
counsel of the whole Waldensian society to seek harmony with us. And,
indeed, when we pressed them with questions about the breaking of
bread, they admitted that this sacrament can be performed only by a
priest, not by a woman or a layman.
[18] They also said that no one, whether good or evil, except He who
is God and man, that is, Christ, could change the substance of the actual
bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. To this extent we
and they were of one mind in this third matter regarding this sacrament.
[19] But we disagree with them on the point which they added, that
the prayer of an adulterer or evildoer may be hearkened to and accepted
by the Lord in this sacrament, for this strays from the path of truth.
Now, Truth says in Matthew: “You are the salt of the earth; but if the
salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing
any more but to be cast out and to be trodden on by men.”1* And in
Luke, He says: “Salt is good; but if the salt shall lose its savor, where¬
with shall it be seasoned? It is neither profitable for the land nor for the
dunghill, but shall be cast out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”20
And in John, the blind man who was given sight says: “Now we know
that God doth not hear sinners, but if a man be a server of God and
doth His will, him He heareth.”21 Also, Truth says in the same Gospel:
“As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abide in the vine, so
neither can you unless you abide in me”; and a little later, “He that
abideth in me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit, for without me
you can do nothing.”22 And again, “If you abide in me, and my words
abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will and it shall be done unto
you.”2* Hence one can infer the exact opposite of this: If you do not
46. Poor Lombards and Poor of Lyons 285
abide in me and my words do not abide in you, none of the things that
you shall ask shall be done unto you. Here, too, the Apostle says:
“Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice
with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what
concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the
unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”24
And again: “All things are clean to the clean, but to them that are
defiled and to unbelievers nothing is clean; but both their mind and their
conscience are defiled. They profess that they know God, but in their
works they deny him, being abominable, and incredulous, and to every
good work reprobate.”25
[20] Also, it appears everywhere in the following that the Lord does
not accept the ministry of the wicked and hearkens not to their prayer;
for, indeed, one reads.... [At this point the letter quotes more than
thirty scriptural passages, all but two from the Old Testament. They
bear on the qualifications of priests and of those who may serve God.
The editor did not transcribe these quotations but listed only the chapter
and verse for each.]
[21] We find not only these verses in the Scriptures but much more
evidence as well in Holy Writ which teaches us to destroy the aforesaid
statement of the Waldenses. Now, if one wishes to protest that “The old
things are passed away, behold, all things are made new,”26 let him
hear also what Paul calls to the attention of the Hebrews: “For if the
word spoken by angels became steadfast,”27 and so on, to which theme
he recurs again in the same book.28 And, as the same Apostle further
testifies, because “Now we know that what things soever the Law
speaketh it speaketh to them that are in the Law,”29 and “What things
soever were written were written for our learning,”30
[22] we utterly reject the statement of belief about the breaking of
bread which the Waldenses produced, written in these words: “On the
question which was put to us about the breaking of bread, we believe
as follows: that the bread and wine become the body and blood of God
after benediction by a priest ordained in the Roman Church, whether
righteous or unrighteous, so long as the congregation of the baptized
upholds him in his office, if he shall take the bread and wine and bless
it in commemoration of the body and blood of God. On the question
posed about one who is secretly a sinner, we believe that when such a
one shall have blessed the bread and wine, it becomes the body and
286 From 1216 to 1325

blood of Jesus Christ after the benediction.” We say that this is the
Waldenses’ profession, to which they hold despite so much sacred
testimony to the contrary. And we take care in this letter to present
to your discretion the profession, corroborated by the texts already
enumerated, which we made orally in their presence and handed to
them in written form.
[23] “This is the reply of the Italians in the matter of the breaking of
bread, or the sacrament. We say that no one, whether good or evil, but
He who is God and man can transform the substance of the visible
bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Whence, if a minister
—we mean a minister ordained in the order of the priesthood of
Christ—shall undertake to consecrate it and God shall hearken to his
prayer, we believe that the substance of the bread and wine is, after the
benediction, the body and blood of Christ, yet never is this due to the
ministrant himself or done through the ministrant.31 We now explain
what we mean by these words. By ‘yet never,’ we mean to say that if
God shall not hearken to him, what is more clear, more evident, than
that it is in God’s authority, not man’s, whether the prayer of a minister
is to be heard by the Lord? Nor is it ‘due to the ministrant himself,’ that
is, in the case of a reprobate minister, even if he shall presume to
partake of it; nor is it ‘done through the ministrant,’ that is, through
such a person’s prayer, if he should seek to transmit it to anyone else.
Moreover, we believe that if anyone shall present himself as worthy to
partake of this sacrament, he obtains what he desires from the Lord,
but not by way of the prayer or from the blessing of an unworthy or
reprobate minister; that is, he accepts the body of the Lord for his own
salvation according to his desire, to which the scriptural texts which
speak of the righteous testify: ‘Thy desire shall be satisfied with good
things’;32 and again, ‘He will do the will of them that fear him, and He
will hear their prayer and save them’;38 and again, ‘The Lord hath
heard the desire of the poor; Thy ear hath heard the preparation of their
heart.’34 Nor does it disturb us when some persons cite in rebuttal the
case of the betrayer Judas, for it is not credible that he partook of the
same as did the other apostles, yet it was one body to them, as Paul is
witness when he says, ‘For we being many, are one bread, one body, all
that partake of one bread and of one chalice.’86 Other like criticism may
♦

be answered in the same fashion.”

[24] We believe that what should be thought of their ministry, as far
46. Poor Lombards and Poor of Lyons 287
as pertains to the sacrament, is made quite clear to you in the foregoing.
But because the disbelief of certain persons, of whom we understand the
Apostle to speak,38 seeks to bring against us teachers who have nothing
to impart, let them listen to teachers who foresaw their ignorance:
Cyprian: “It is manifest that the Eucharist can never be consecrated
among persons in whom there is no hope and faith is not true, where all
things are done by falsehood. Like monkeys, who without being men
counterfeit human aspect, the heretic lays claim to the authority and
truth of the Catholic Church. Although not in the Church of God, he
gives blessings; although cursed by God, he promises life; although
dead, he calls on God; although a blasphemer, he exercises priesthood;
sacrilegious, he constructs a wicked altar. To it he brings all things. How
evil it is that the devil’s priest should dare to perform the Eucharist of
Christ, for no offering can be made holy where the Holy Spirit is not,
nor will the Lord grant good unto anyone because of the intercessions
and prayers of someone who himself does dishonor to the Lord.”37
Jerome on Zephaniah: “Priests who celebrate the Eucharist and un¬
worthily consecrate His blood act in impiety against the law of Christ
when they suppose that words, not life, consecrate the Eucharist for the
worshiper, and that only the customary prayer is necessary, not the
worthiness of the priesthood, of which it is said that ‘the priest in whom
there is any blemish whatsoever shall not approach to offer sacrifices
to the Lord.”’38 And the same on Haggai: “Although holy seem the
offerings, yet because they are touched by ‘one that is unclean by oc¬
casion of a soul,’ all are defiled.”39
Gregory: “They who sell or buy holy offices cannot be priests,
whence it is written: ‘Damnation to him who gives, damnation to him
who receives.’” This is the heresy of simony. How, therefore, if they
are anathema and are not holy, can they make others holy, and when
they are not in the body of Christ, how can they consecrate or partake
of Christ’s body? How can he give a blessing who is accursed? And the
same author: “Whoever pays money to be ordained so that he may
receive advancement, is by that act a heretic.”40
From a letter of Pope Innocent: “Let them hear this, they who, like
heretical thorns piercing the whole body of Holy Church on every side,
bring death when they say, ‘I do not listen to the simoniac but to the
words of benediction which come from his mouth.’ O pitiful ones, more
miserable than all other men, who dare to utter such wickedness with
288 From 1216 to 1325

sacrilegious tongue! Why do they not attend the words of Solomon? ‘He
that tumeth away his ears from hearing the Law, his prayer shall be an
abomination.’ And the Lord, proclaiming through Malachi that the
benediction of evil priests is to be reckoned a malediction, says: 1 will
curse your blessings.’”41
Let this be enough on this subject.
[25] To anyone who bases an argument against us on our former
profession or credulity about this sacrament, we make this brief answer:
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away the things of
a child.”42 Nor do we believe that any of the brethren, servants of the
Lord, who lived in piety unto their death, are damned because of this
credulity. If anyone assails us, saying: “Why, therefore, do you not
confess yourselves still to believe the like?” we answer that it is because
we cannot believe what is contrary to the truth now made manifest from
the Scriptures nor, even though the Waldenses seek to coerce us in this
regard, will we assent to this profession, “for one must obey God rather
than men.”4* Not for an hour did Paul, as he himself testifies, yield by
subjection to those who wished to bring him under servitude of the
Law.44 Nor, after the explanation of the story of the vision and the
conversion of Cornelius, did the faithful of the circumcision adduce in
contradiction to the Blessed Peter the fact that neither Peter nor the
other apostles in times past had believed Gentiles could be admitted
uncircumcised to the faith; and the Blessed Stephen, the first martyr
after the passion of the Lord, who had been of like mind, was saved.46
Nor among the brethren did these things arouse controversy, but they
said, glorifying God, “God then hath also to the Gentiles given repent¬
ance unto life.”46
[26] We have accounted worthwhile touch cursorily on the
controversy with the Waldenses and on their inapposite arguments de¬
scribed above, leaving to your discretion many of the things needful to
refute them, and to dispatch these to you by our most beloved Ugolus
• mm A

and Algossus,47 by whom will be explained that old and spurious usage,
and the truth which deserves the praise of those who have ear to hear.
Whence, dearly beloved, in conclusion we earnestly solicit your
thoughtful care unmindful of the following precepts Thy word
it

a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths”;48 and, “The commandment

of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes”;48 and “He that believeth
46, Poor Lombards and Poor of Lyons 289

in me, as the Scripture saith, ‘Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water’5’50—that you may work to serve Jesus in yourselves and your
hearers, according to your strength and age and grace and wisdom,
vouchsafed to you by Him who, three and one, rules over all forever
and ever.
Our society greets you. Pray for us. “The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit
be always with you all. Amen.”51

47. A Debate between a Catholic

and a Patarine
The literary device adopted by the author of this piece was derived, no
doubt, from those actual disputations which were not uncommon in southern
France before the Albigensian Crusade and for perhaps half a century there¬
after in northern Italy.1 The author of this summa cast in the form of a
debate was probably Italian, but we know no more of him than his name,
George, and that he was a layman.2 His adversary defends views character¬
istic of the Bagnolenses, whose members, about the year 1250, were found
particularly in Mantua, Brescia, and Bergamo, with a few in the region of
Milan and in the Romagna.5 To judge from the survival of some twenty-
eight manuscripts, this treatise had a wide circulation. The copies fall into
two families, differentiated by the inclusion in some of them of a chapter
on the Eucharist. Also a short passage on predestination is appended to the
one manuscript from which the treatise was printed, and appears in the
printed edition. These additions characterize what has been called a “French”
version of the original “Italian” text. Probably the copyist who introduced
them to the tract borrowed the additions from the work of Moneta of
Cremona (see No. 50), with the intention of providing material on the
Eucharist and predestination for the preachers and controversialists for
whom he wrote.4
The most complete study of the treatise is that of Ilarino da Milano,
“Fr. Gregorio, O.P., vescovo di Fano, e la ‘Disputatio inter catholicum et
paterinum hereticum,’ ” Aevum, XIV (1940), 85-140. From the text printed
by Mart&ne and Durand, we translate the Prologue, which reveals the
author’s zeal for controversy, and the first chapter, which presents the adver¬
saries’ discussion of a fundamental tenet of dualism. In a few instances we
have adopted the readings given by Ilarino da Milano, who, in the work
just cited (pp. 125-27), edited the Prologue from other manuscripts. Our
translation is from [George] Disputatio inter catholicum et paterinum here¬
ticum, in Edmond Mart&ne and Ursin Durand, Thesaurus novum anec-
dotorum (5 vols., Paris, 1717), V, 1705-11.
290 From 1216 to 1325
1240-1250 (?)

[Prologue]
As the world moves toward decline and dangerous times impend,
wherein many persons departing from the faith5 have to their own de¬
struction formed sects and have assembled followers with itching ears,6
every faithful person, in so far as God divides to him the measure of
faith,7 ought to rise up against those heretics who are called Patarines
and who are in error, not alone on one article of faith but in all. For
s

they say that Christ was a phantasm, not a man, and thus, they believe,
was not in reality baptized, nor truly tempted, suffered not, nor was
buried, neither rose again, nor ascended into heaven. They hold wicked
ideas about the Trinity of Persons, declaring that after the Last Judg¬
ment the three will become one person, paying no heed to the text of
James, “With Whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.”8
They also postulate two creators; they set forth two eternal principles,
two gods, one of visible things, the other of the invisible. What more?
They corrupt the faith in all ways. I, however, not that I may call myself
a wall for the house of the Lord,9 but standing upon the walls of
Jerusalem, that is, upon the Gospel and the apostolic texts, hurl the
things that you will read in the following pages as living stones against
the afore-mentioned heretics. Let those who are more powerful than I
attack them hand to hand with stronger weapons. I have not believed
that I could excuse myself before the Heavenly Ruler if I did not resist
His enemies at least to the extent of my abilities.
The Argument Opens.—That through this little book a way may be
illumined whereby to oppose the Patarines, we present our material in
the form of a debate between a heretic and a Catholic... .10

Chapter I: Concerning the Creation of Visible Things

Arise, O God, and judge Thy cause!
44
The Catholic Speaks In the Gospel of John All
things were made by Him”;12 and subsequently, “The world was made
by Him, and His own knew Him not.”13 And Paul to the Ephesians,
chapter 3: “Who created all things”;14 and in the same book, the
second chapter, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus.”15
Hebrews, chapter 3, “He that created all things is God Romans
chapter 11: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowl
47. Catholic and Patarine Debate 291

edge of God”;17 and again in the same book, “And of Him, and by
Him, and in Him are all things.”18 Timothy, chapter 4: “Forbidding to
marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received
with thanksgiving by the faithful.”19 Apocalypse, chapter 10: “And he
swore by Him that liveth forever and ever, Who created heaven and all
the things which are therein, and the earth and all the things which are
in it, and the sea and the things that are therein.”20 Acts, chapter 4:
“Lord, thou art he that didst make heaven and earth, the sea, and all
things that are in them”;21 and chapter 17, “God, who made this world
and all things therein; He, being the Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth
not in temples made with hands.”22 It therefore appears from these
citations that the one God is creator of all things.
The Patarine Replies.—I admit that God created all things. This
means all good things, but He did not make the evil, vain, perishable,
and visible things; a lesser creator, Lucifer, made them, whence the
words of John, “Without Him was made nothing.”23 Moreover, [we
must] interpret the phrase, “The world was made by Him,”24 as mean¬
ing worldly souls, namely, our own. But our bodies and all other visible
things25 were made by a lesser creator, the devil. Yet God also created
“the heavens,” which are our heavenly souls; “the earth,” which means
the earthbound souls of believers; “the sea,” which means our souls,
abounding with the water of doctrine; and “all things which are therein,”
which means our whole faith which is in these aforesaid souls. All these
things God created.
Rebuttal of the Foregoing Response.—Most wicked Manichaean,
how do you explain, “His own received him not”? In what way were
they His who received him not? By grace they were not His; therefore,
they were His by creation, for no other explanation can be found. As
for your statement that all good things were made by God and that
visible, perishable things were made by the devil, hearken to Paul
contradicting you in the Epistle to the Colossians, chapter 1, where he
says of Christ: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born
of every creature, for in him were all things created in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible.”26 Also, Hebrews, chapter 1: “And Thou in
the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth, and the works of thy
hands are the heavens.”27 If you wish to use the interpretation you
suggested, in which you explain “earth” as meaning the souls of be¬
lievers, “heaven” the perfect souls of the Patarines, hearken to what
292 From 1216 to 1325

follows: “They shall perish.”28 Therefore, the souls of the Patarines

shall perish.
Also, Peter in the third chapter of the second Epistle, “But the
heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in
store.”29 If you interpret this to mean the visible heavens, then God
created visible things; if you interpret it to mean the souls of Patarines,
listen to what follows: “Reserved unto fire against the Day of Judgment
and perdition of the ungodly men.”30 Therefore, the souls of the Patar¬
ines shall perish in fire with ungodly men.
Also, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11: “For as the
man is of the woman, so also is the man by the woman, but all things
of God.”31 Therefore, the birth of the first men and of their descendants
is from God, not from the devil as you lyingly say. If, however, you
interpret “man” to mean Christ, “woman” to mean the Church, then the
Apostle would have lied, for this man, Christ, is not by woman, the Church ;
on the contrary the Church is and ought to be by Him and from Him.
The Arguments of the Patarines That There Are Two Gods and
That the Devil, Not God, Created This World*2—The Gospel of John,
chapter 8, “You are of your father the devil.”33 Ephesians, chapter 2,
“We were by nature children of wrath.”34 Romans, chapter 9, “Vessels
of wrath, fitted for destruction.”35 The Gospel of John, chapter 14, “The
prince of this world cometh.”38 Matthew, chapter 4: “[The devil]
showed him all the kingdoms of the world,” saying, “All these will I
give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me.”87 And the first Epistle of
John, the last chapter, “The world is seated in wickedness.”38 Therefore,
the devil is the father of men and they are his vessels, and so he is the
prince of the world; therefore, he is god and prince of the world.
The Reply of the Catholic.—I willingly admit the first propositions
of this argument, to wit, that the devil is the father and prince of this
world, that is, of worldly men and of worldly pleasures; they are his
children who imitate him in evil. This you have done: You say, “There¬
fore, he is creator and god.” Zebedee was the father of John and James;
therefore, he was god and creator—this is false.
Here is another example: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over
them.”39 Therefore, the kings are their creators and gods—which is
false. Moreover, when the devil promised Christ all the kingdoms of
the world, he lied, as is his wont, for he knew not that he was speaking
to the King of Kings.
47. Catholic and Patarine Debate 293
The Reply of the Patarine.—The Apostle says in II Corinthians,
chapter 4, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of
unbelievers.”40 Therefore, the god of this world is he who blinds minds,
that is, the devil.
The Reply of the Catholic.—Interpret it thus: God, the Heavenly
Father, blinded, that is, He allowed to be blinded, the minds of un¬
believers of this world, as the Apostle says to the Romans, chapter 9:
“God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will, he hardeneth,”41
that is, He permits to be hardened. Or it can be interpreted as meaning
a god of this world, that is, of this world’s wickedness—namely, the
devil. He is not god, a creator, but a tempter, for he lures men to
wickedness, as the same Apostle says to the Philippians, chapter 3:
“Whose god is their belly,”42 those whom the belly tempts. Just as the
belly is called god, not because it created or made anything but only
because it tempts, so also is the devil the god of the world, that is, of
worldly wickedness.
The Reply of the Patarine.—In the Gospel of John, chapter 1, he
says, “That which was made in Him was life.”48 But bodies die, there¬
fore they were not “made”; therefore Christ did not make bodies.
The Reply of the Catholic.—O stupid one! The passage does not
read “That which was made by Him (ab ipso) was life,” as you under¬
stand it, for both life and death were made by Him. He “killeth and
maketh alive”;44 He commits men to hell and draws them forth again.
Therefore, the words “That which was made in him,” were used be¬
cause in Him was effected the prophecy, the nativity, circumcision,
baptism, fasting, suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection. And all this
that was made in Him was life, for through His suffering we live and
experience the other things which we have enumerated. That we give
the proper interpretation is evident, also, from what follows, “And the
life was the light of men,”45 for here he [John] refers to another life,
rather than to Him.
The Patarine on the Same Subject.—“No man can serve two mas¬
ters.”46 This is in the sixth chapter of Matthew. Since there are, indeed,
“gods many and lords many,”47 it is not without reason, therefore, that
we say there are two gods.
The Reply of the Catholic.—The Gospel does not say two gods but
two masters. Indeed, the devil himself is a so-called god, one in name
but not in reality, as the Apostle himself interprets to the Corinthians
294 From 1216 to 1325
that very text which you have advanced against us, where he adds: “For
although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth; yet
to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we
unto Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we
by Him.”48 Let us recast the argument now: Let us declare that the
Gospel texts and the words of the Apostle say that one may be called
god but not be God; on the other hand, there is only one God the
Father. And one may be called lord of those who serve him, as do you,
but nothing is created by him. There is, on the other hand, one Christ
only, through whom are all things.
The Argument of the Patarine on the Same Subject. Why do you
say in the rite of baptism, “We renounce Satan”? Why is it recounted
in the Gospel that the Lord cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalen,m
unless the devil is in those who are to be baptized and in all evil things?
Therefore, he created them.
The Reply of the Catholic.—Truly the devil is in many things, as he
is in you, not, however, as a creator but as a thief, an intruder, a robber,
just as the Lord says in the Gospel, “And ought not this daughter of
Abraham whom Satan hath bound,”50 and so on. As a thief, an intruder,
a robber, Satan bound her, but Abraham, not he, was the father.
The Reply of the Patarine.—“Vanity of vanities and all is vanity”;51
again, “All things are vanity, every man living.”62 And [II] Corinthians,
chapter 4, “The things which are seen are temporal; the things which
are not seen are eternal.”58 Therefore, because the things which are
visible are vain, they were not created by God, who is eternal; because
they are evil, they were not created by the good God.
Reply of the Catholic.—There is nothing vain and nothing evil in that
which was created by God; on the contrary, all things are good in that
which was created by Him. By nature, all things are good in themselves,
but they are disfigured and corrupted by vice. This, also, is an example
of your argument: She is a virgin; therefore she is not among corrupted
things.
The Patarine.—John on the Passion: “My kingdom is not of this
world.”54 Therefore Christ is not king of this world.
The Catholic.—Jesus did not say that His kingdom was not over
this world but that it was not of this world, that is, from the world, for
the world did not give Him this power. Therefore His kingdom is truly
not from this world but from the Father. The kingdom of earthly
47. Catholic and Patarine Debate 295

beings is of the world, for it is from the world, that is, from men, that
rulers have this power.
The Argument against the Patarine.—Ephesians, chapter 3, “In the
beginning, for this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, of whom all,”55 and so on. Timothy, chapter 1: “To the
king of ages”;56 also, Hebrews, chapter 1, “Whom He hath appointed
heir of all things, by Whom also He made the world.”57 Also, Hebrews,
chapter 11, “By faith we understand that the world was framed by the
word of God.”58 Also, Romans, chapter 9: “Hath not the potter power
over the same lump of clay, to make one vessel unto dishonor and an¬
other unto honor?”59 The furnace tests the potter’s vase, as Scripture
affirms, and the temptation of tribulation tests chaste men. Also, Jude,
chapter 1, “Denying the only sovereign Ruler and Lord,”60 who is
Christ. Just before these words he called those who denied Christ
“ungodly men.”61 So both worlds were created by God, not, as you say,
one by God, the other by the devil. There is one potter, who is God,
Who makes vessels unto honor, that is, those who are good, and vessels
unto dishonor, that is, those who are evil. And he who denies that Christ
alone is Lord is ungodly.
The Manichaean in Rebuttal.—Man was born of sin, therefore not
of God.
The Catholic Replies.—Man is not born of sin, but we are conceived
in sin, as a pearl is not of the mud, but in the mud. No substance is
born of sin, but death is; as James says, “Sin, when it is completed,
begetteth death.”62
The Patarine.—We must believe that the tree which was in the midst
of Paradise is the womb of woman, of which is said, “Of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat,”68 meaning, seek not
fornication with woman. But the serpent, which is the devil, first ate of
the tree, for he fornicated with Eve, whereof Cain was born. Eve there¬
after offered and gave it to her man for she subsequently committed
adultery with Adam, from which were born Abel and Seth. “And the
sons of God,” that is, demons, “seeing the daughters of men, that they
were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose.”64
The Catholic Replies.—O most abominable heretics! This is what
you teach to simple folk, taking your pretext for this doctrine from
Genesis, but we will prove from Genesis itself that your interpretation
is false. For it is said there that God “planted a Paradise of pleasure
296 From 1216 to 1325
from the beginning.”65 But He did not make woman until the sixth day,
after man, for He made her from his rib. Therefore, Paradise was made
previously, and man was formed therein before woman. So, therefore,
woman is not Paradise, nor is the tree in the midst of Paradise her
womb, as you allege. Also, one reads there that man was driven out of
Paradise, but obviously he was not driven away from woman. Therefore
woman is not Paradise. Moreover, you offer an evil interpretation when
you say that demons took the daughters of men, for demons do not
have virile powers or flesh. But this is the interpretation: “The sons of
God,” that is, those who descended from Seth, who was good and was
sent by God to replace Abel, “seeing the daughters of men,” that is,
women who descended from Cain, who came from iniquity by imitation
—and so on for the other points which follow.

48. Subjects and Texts for

Preaching against Heresy
Lists of scriptural texts appropriate for the refutation of heretical tenets
form one of the types of antiheretical literature from the thirteenth century.
Although they hardly deserve the name of summae, which they bear, they
illustrate well the nonviolent aspect of the religious struggle; apparently they
were compiled for the use of preachers, either for warning the faithful
against wrongful teaching or for engaging in face-to-face debates with
heretics.1 The experience of the preaching missions in Languedoc in the first
decade of the century and the subsequent increase in public preaching by
the friars and companion orders such as the Poor Catholics may well have
inspired such lists.
We have no basis for dating the compilations which have survived, other
than certain similarities between them and more elaborate polemical works
of the second quarter of the thirteenth century. Presumably the need for
these aids for preachers would have decreased appreciably as the Inquisi¬
tion evolved.
The structure of these skeletal tracts in simple. Each chapter heading
states a point of doctrine or practice which was denied by heretics; if the
statement were phrased on the negative it would represent a heretical tenet.
Under each heading are listed scriptural texts which support the point in
question; they are cited by book and chapter, and only a few words of the
verse are given. Occasionally the compiler adds further words of comment,
explanation, or argument. Thus the value for our purposes is chiefly in the
revelation of the range of subjects on which a defender of the faith had to
be prepared to speak. Only the more elaborate of the full-scale polemical
treatises treat of so many particulars.
The few compilations of this sort that are known raise certain questions
48. Subjects and Texts against Heresy 297

which may be stated here, if not answered. There are marked similarities
between these lists of subjects and texts and more fully developed polemics.
For example, no less than a dozen of the chapters in the two works pre¬
sented here display very close affinities—in the choice of biblical texts, in
the order in which they are presented, and occasionally in the comment
which is added to them—to passages in the summa of James Capelli (No.
49);2 to a somewhat lesser extent the same is true of certain other chapters
and the Summa contra haereticos attributed to Prevostin of Cremona (No 26).
How did these similarities arise? Did one author borrow from another? Or
was there a common source—if so, of what sort? Such questions are not,
perhaps, of first importance but are of interest in assessing the technique of
the polemicists and evaluating the quality of their work.
Monsignor Celestin Douais published the compilations which we translate
here. He had found in one manuscript an incomplete tract which broke off
in the middle of the thirteenth chapter, in another manuscript a tract very
like it but beginning only with the eleventh chapter. Although Douais
published these as separate items, numbered I and II, they are, as he
suspected might be the case, two exemplars of the same work. This is proved
by Manuscript 894 of the University Library of Leipzig, where we have
found the tract in its entirety (fols. 74v-77v). Douais also published, as his
Number III, another compilation of texts defending the sacraments, which
was found in the same manuscript as his Number II. This also appears in the
Leipzig manuscript (fols. 77v-79r). Still another item was added by Douais
as Number IV. It differs from the others only in having more comment
by the compiler in explanation of the scriptural verses to advance the'
argument.3
From Douais’s editions of his Numbers I, II, and III we translate only the
chapter titles, except that, to show the format, we give the first ten citations
in the first chapter of the first tract in full. The reading of the printed text
has been amended in a few instances on the basis of the Leipzig manuscript.
The translation is made from Celestin Douais, La Somme des autorites
a Vusage des predicateurs meridionaux au XIlle siecle (Paris, 1896), pp.
34-66.

circa 1225-1250

I. A SUMMA AGAINST MANICHAEAN HERETICS

Here begins a summa against Manichaean heretics, dealing with the

articles of faith and the sacraments of the Church.
[i] In the first chapter it is proved that the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit are one substance and one God.
Matt. 1:[23:] His name shall be called Immanuel.
The same book, 8:[2:] Behold a leper came and adored him,
saying.
 From 1216 to 1325

In the same chapter, [v. 26:] Then rising up he commanded.

The same book, 9:[4:] And Jesus seeing their thoughts.
The same book, 28:[19:] Going therefore, teach ye all nations.
Luke 8:[46:] For I know that virtue is gone out from me.
The same book, 10:[18:] I saw Satan like lightning, falling.
John 1:[1 and 14:] In the beginning was the word.... We
saw His glory.
In the same chapter, [v. 18:] No man hath seen God at any
time.
The same book, 3:[16:] God so loved the world....
[n] In the second chapter it is proved that God, who is triune in
person and one in essence, is the creator of all things
visible and invisible....
[in] In the third chapter it is proved that the omnipotent God is
not only creator but maker....
[iv] In the fourth chapter it is proved that the omnipotent God
formed the nature of Adam and Eve and other bodies....
M In the fifth chapter it is proved that Abel was a good man
and just, and that he was pleasing to God....
[vi] In the sixth chapter it is proved that Enoch was a good man
and just, and that he was pleasing to God....
[vii] In the seventh chapter it is proved that in the days of Noah
the omnipotent God brought about a flood upon the earth
and that Noah was a good man....
[viii] In the eighth chapter it is proved that the good God ap¬
peared to Abraham and spoke to him....
[ix] In the ninth chapter it is proved that they were good angels
whom Abraham received with hospitality....
[x] In the tenth chapter it is proved that the omnipotent God
gave the covenant of circumcision to Abraham....
[xi] That the omnipotent God is He who spoke to Isaac... .4
[XII] That the omnipotent God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah,
Adama, Seboim, and Segor....
[XIII] That the omnipotent and good [God] led the people [of
Israel] out of Egypt; on Mount Sinai He gave the Law to
His servant Moses... .
[XIV] That the prophets were holy and just and prophesied by the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit....
48. Subjects and Texts against Heresy 299
[xv] That David5 was holy and just....
[XVI] That the prophet Elijah was holy and just....
[XVII] That John the Baptist was holy and just....
[xvm] That Christ in His divinity® was the Son of God....
[XIX] That God infuses new souls into new bodies....
[XX] That there is a soul, not an angel, in the body....
[XXI] That the soul of man is immortal....
[XXII] That Christ came to save the souls of men....
[XXIII] That demons7 are absolutely damned....
[XXIV] That angelic spirits remained in heaven after the fall of
Lucifer....
[XXV] That the Most Blessed Mary was a woman....
[XXVI] That the Blessed Mary had a father and a mother....
[XXVII] That Christ in his humanity was the son of the Blessed
Mary....
[xxvm] That Christ took on true flesh from the Virgin... .8
[XXIX] That Christ truly had the attributes of humanity....
[xxx] That Christ had a true soul... .*
[XXXI] That Christ descended into hell....
[XXXII] That He truly had the attributes of a soul. ...
[XXXIII] That Christ died in His humanity....
[XXXIV] That Christ rose again from the dead....
[XXXV] That Christ ascended into heaven....
[xxxvi] That Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead....
[XXXVII] That there shall be a true resurrection of bodies, glorification
of the saints, and eternal damnation of the wicked....

III. A COMPILATION OF TEXTS ON THE

SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
Here begins a compilation of texts on the sacraments of the Church
against the Manichaean heretics....
[i] Proof that before His passion Christ, at the Last Supper, gave
to His disciples His body, which the Church daily con¬
secrates on the altar....
[n] That the Church may without sin possess property....
[hi] That the institutions of the Church are not to be nullified... .,#
[iv] That forgiveness comes in the baptism of water....
[v] That everyone must be baptized and that baptism has good
 From 1216 to 1325

effect before the age of discretion....“

[VI] That children are sinful and stand in need of atonement....
[VII] That children attain salvation through the faith of their
sponsors....
[VIII] That baptism is of good effect without the imposition of
hands....
[IX] That contrition is effective toward remission of sins....
[X] That confession is effective toward remission of sins....
[XI] That penance is effective toward remission of sins....
[XII] That penance may be repeated....
[xml That men in a state of carnal matrimony may attain salva¬
tion. ...
[xiv] That the apostles ordained deacons, priests, and bishops....
[xv] That a material place may be called a church, the house of
God, and a house of prayer....
[xvi] That prayers ought to be said for the living and the dead and
that extreme unction is doubly of value.
[xvn] That Christ ate of the paschal lamb with His disciples... .‘2
[xviii] That a man may make use of all foods unless he is restrained
by a vow... .1S
[XIX] That in case of necessity a man may swear to the truth with¬
out mortal sin....
[XX] Against the Passagians and the Circumcisers, that the Old
Testament is not to be observed to the letter... ,u
[XXI] Against the same sects, that the Sabbath is not to be kept to
the letter... ,1S
[xxn] That circumcision is not to be accepted literally... .
[XXIII] That punishments are not equal nor are rewards and sins
equal....
[xxiv] That there is true resurrection of bodies and glorification of
saints....

Here ends the abridged summa against the Manichaean and Patarine
heretics and against the Passagians, the Circumcisers, and many other
heretics who attempt to overthrow the truth, “whose judgment now of a
long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.”1* From
such damnation may He who sits at the right hand of Majesty, above
the nine orders of angels in the heavens, preserve His own. Amen.
49. James Capelli on the Cathars 301

49. James Capelli on the Cathars

Ascribed to James Capelli, a Franciscan friar, the summa from which
excerpts are here translated is of particular interest because of the author’s
care to do justice to his adversaries. In denying popular rumors about them
and in giving them credit for fervent, although mistaken, zeal, he displays
scruples rarely encountered in other authors of polemical tracts.
Only one of the manuscripts of the treatise bears an indication of James
Capelli’s authorship; the others are anonymous. James was the lector of
the Franciscan convent in Milan about the middle of the thirteenth century
and the author also of a series of Lenten sermons and of a devotional
work, Stimulus amoris, inspired by the thought and example of St. Bona-
venture.1
Not only is the summa somewhat unusual for its mildness of tone, but
it presents a puzzle in the matter of its relationship to contemporary works.
In chapters devoted to descriptions of the heretics and their beliefs, there
are many passages closely similar to portions of the much longer treatise of
Moneta of Cremona (see No. 50) although Moneta omits all the observations
which give the present work its tone of moderation. Furthermore, in many
other chapters in which orthodox beliefs are defended by the presentation
of their scriptural basis, the biblical texts cited are those found, often in the
same order, and on occasion with the same exposition of their application
to the argument, in some of the compilations for the use of preachers from
which we drew Number 48. From an analysis of these similarities it may be
surmised that our author borrowed from these compilations, or from works
very like them, and that his words in turn formed one of the numerous
sources used by Moneta of Cremona.2
The summa was first described by Charles Molinier after a manuscript
of Milan which bears James Capelli’s name.3 Shortly thereafter, Dollinger
printed some excerpt from an anonymous tract in a manuscript of Cesena,4
the whole text of which was later published by Bazzocchi. It remained for
Ilarino da Milano (“La uSumma contra haereticos’ di Giacomo Capelli,
O.F.M., e un suo ‘Quaresimale’ inedito [secolo XIII],” Collectanea francis-
cana, X [1940], 66-82) to show that the same treatise appeared in all these
works.5 Molinier and Ilarino da Milano agree that the treatise was probably
written between 1240 and 1260.6 In view of its probable relationship with
the work of Moneta, who wrote about 1241 (see No. 50), we suggest that
it was prepared about 1240.
The translation is made from Dino Bazzocchi, La Eresia catara: Saggio
storico filosofico con in appendice Disputationes nonnullae adversus
haereticos, codice inedito de secolo XIU della biblioteca Malatestiana di
Cesena (Essay and appendix published separately, Bologna, 1919, 1920),
Appendix, pp. cxxxvi-cxxxix, cxlix-cl, clvii-clviii, and clxxxvi-clxxxvii,
by permission of the publisher, Licinio Capelli. The Bazzocchi edition is
marred by certain errors of transcription and by misprints. We have, there¬
fore, collated it with the Cesena manuscript for this translation, but do not
302 From 1216 to 1325
enumerate all the corrections of the printed text which resulted; only those
are noted which markedly affect the translation.

circa 1240
Heretical Opinions about the Baptism of Water.—Our Lord Jesus
Christ, after glorious ascension into heaven and elevation to the right
hand of the Father of mankind, sent the promised Spirit Paraclete to
His disciples, Who by inspiration would recall to their minds all that He
had said when He dwelt among them. Supported by His teaching and
authority, they spread the preaching of the Gospel abroad through all
the earth by the aid of the Lord, confirming the word by subsequent
miracles. Those who were converted by their preaching were baptized
with the healing and health-giving laver of rebirth, so that through the
baptism of water believers might reap the reward of salvation, in accord
with the text, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”8 But
the persistent babbling of the heretics impugns this reverend sacrament
with poisonous phrases. For they say that the baptism of water does
nothing toward man’s salvation, since neither is remission of sins a
consequence of baptism nor does the grace of the Holy Spirit ac¬
company it.
On the Customs of Heretics.—They have a sacrament of imposition
of hands, which they call the baptism of the Holy Spirit, without which,
they think, no one can be saved. Their bishop performs this imposition
of hands or, if the bishop is not present, the two sons of the bishop
have the power to perform it. Now, they ordain two officers holding
ranks below the bishop, whom they call the sons of the Church. They
are something like visitors.9 These two travel about to the localities and
towns where they have conventicles, visit their brethren, and by their
instruction confirm them in the way of life of the sect, correcting what¬
ever requires amendment. Indeed, if they find any persons who are less
than circumspect, they expend much effort to steal them away from the
unity of the Catholic faith and to gulp them into the belly of their error
by baneful bites of blasphemy.
Furthermore, they have other officials, whom they call deacons, each
of whom is established in a single town, presiding over the men and
women of their sect and governing them at his discretion.10 The deacons
maintain a hospice for their own members, in which brethren who come
from other places receive the boon of hospitality, cheerfully providing
49. James Capelli on the Cathars 303
for the latter’s necessities with careful attention, for they are strongly
linked to each other by a bond of affection. The deacons in like manner
have the power to perform the imposition of hands if the bishop and the
above-mentioned two sons are not present. They do not have other
prelates. In truth, this power is granted also to subordinate persons if
emergency so requires.
They perform the ceremony of this sacrament, after a large number
of brothers and sisters have assembled, by calling into their midst the
man or woman who, after one year’s probation, is to receive it. There,
one of the aforesaid officials or some other person especially qualified
by age or wisdom utters11 a long prayer. He instructs12 the believer in
the tenets he must accept and the customs he must observe among them,
tells him to retain no hope of salvation in the faith of the Roman
Church or in its sacraments, and warns him of the need to bear all
misfortune with constancy and steadfastness for the preservation of his
faith and doctrine. Thereafter, when the question of whether he wishes
to comply is posed, the believer answers that he will cheerfully accept
all the things proposed and will not cease to do so throughout his whole
life, disdaining all adversity. And so the senior prelate holds the text of
the Gospels over his head and all the brethren gathered there come
forward, each to put his right hand on the believer’s head or shoulder.
Then the prelate who holds the Book speaks these words, “In the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; and after re¬
peating the Lord’s Prayer seven times, he proceeds to read the Gospel
of John which is chanted in church at Christmas, which is, “In the
beginning was the Word,”13 and so on.
With the performance of these rites they believe that all sins are
forgiven the initiate and that the grace of the Holy Spirit is infused in
him, for they hold that without such imposition of hands no one can be
saved. If, indeed, any one of them chances to fall into mortal sin,14 they
do not think that he can in any way attain forgiveness without the
repetition of this sacrament. For this reason, it is very often repeated
among them. In particular, they administer this imposition of hands to
believers in their sect who are ill, out of which has stemmed the popular
rumor that they kill them by strangulation, so that they may be martyrs
or confessors.15 From personal knowledge we affirm this to be untrue
and we urge that no one believe that they commit so shameful an act.
For we know that they suppose their behavior to be virtuous16 and they
do many things that are in the nature of good works; in frequent prayer,
304 From 1216 to 1325
in vigils, in sparsity of food and clothing, and—let me acknowledge the
truth—in austerity of abstinence they surpass all other religious, so that
truly in them are fulfilled the words of the Apostle: “For such false
apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the
apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself transformeth
himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his
ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice.” “For I bear them
witness that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
For they, not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their
own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.”17
But under this cloak of good works, in fact, they steal away the
hearts of the foolish through sweet words18 and blessings and by magni¬
fying the wickedness and the bad customs of the clergy they make them
pretexts for blaspheming the Church of God before men and for
destroying the Catholic faith. Thus they cause many to share their
error....
Concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Body Which Is Performed
at the Altar,19—Now that we have refuted the opinions of the heretics
about the sacrament of baptism, we come to a discussion of the sacra¬
ment of the Eucharist and will call attention to what they say about it.
It is established that those whom the wickedness of perfidy20 sets apart
from the unity of the faithful it also keeps from communion in the
sacraments of the Church, that those who sin through their bodily parts
waste away in starvation, being cut off from the abundance of the body
and blood of the Lord. For they deny that the bread and wine con¬
secrated on the altar by a priest are changed or transubstantiated into
the body of Christ. They think it impossible that the substance of bread
and wine can, through the ministry of any man, be changed by tran-
substantiation into flesh and blood, for this they cannot comprehend in
terms of human reason. And so, they are unwilling to believe, nay more,
they ridicule those who do. For how21 could they believe any substance
be changed into the flesh and blood of the body of Jesus Christ who,
as we said above, mendaciously assert that He had not a true body but
its phantasm only? They recount, however, that the bread which Christ
blessed and broke at the Last Supper was his body only in token, not
by change; wherefore they explain the words “This is my body”22 as
meaning “This signifies my body,” in the same way that the words “And
the rock was Christ”28 denoted not the actuality but the token. But,
49. James Capelli on the Cathars 305
indeed, since the words were spoken to the disciples, “Do this whenso¬
ever you shall eat for a commemoration of me,”24 for that reason they
have a similar custom, for they believe themselves to be successors to
the apostles. At all times28 that they eat or drink, once all the foodstuffs
are on the table and everyone standing around it, the oldest among them
takes and breaks bread, giving thanks and saying the Lord’s Prayer,
and distributes to each one a small portion26 to be eaten. There are
various views about this custom among them. Some of them say that
the purpose of the act is to ward off contamination from partaking of
food, for they believe foods to be evil by having origin from the earth.
As we said previously, they believe the devil divided the elements and
gave fertility to the earth so that it might bear fruit. Certain others,
however, say that this is done only in commemoration of the death of
Christ, although they do not believe that He really died, and they do in
imitation just what He had done... ,27
The Protests of the Heretics That in Matrimony No One Can Be
Saved?*—Having discussed the sacrament of the Eucharist, we turn to
the subject of matrimony. Now matrimony is the legitimate union of
man and woman who seek an inseparable community of life under faith
and worship of one God. Against this the ferocious rabies of the heretics
foams out false phrases full of idle superstition. They babble that no
one can ever be saved in matrimony. Indeed, these most stupid of
people, seeking the purity of virginity and chastity, say that all carnal
coition is shameful, base, and odious, and thus damnable. Although
spiritually they are prostituted and they pollute the word of God, they
are, however,2* most chaste of body. For men and women observing the
vow and way of life of this sect are in no way soiled by the corruption
of debauchery. Whence, if any one of them, man or woman, happens to
be fouled by fornication, if convicted by two or three witnesses, he
forthwith either is ejected from their group or, if he repents, is recon¬
soled by the imposition of their hands, and a heavy penitential burden
is placed upon him as amends for sin.39 Actually, the rumor of the forni¬
cation which is said to prevail among them is most false. For it is true
that once a month, either by day or by night, in order to avoid gossip
by the people, men and women meet together, not, as some lyingly say,
for purposes of fornication, but so that they may hear preaching and
make confession to their presiding official, as though from his prayers
pardon for their sins would ensue. They are wrongfully wounded in
306 From 1216 to 1325

popular rumor by many malicious charges of blasphemy from those

who say that they commit many shameful and horrid acts of which they
are innocent. And, therefore, they vaunt themselves to be disciples of
Christ, who said, “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute
you”;31 and “You shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake.”32 And,
indeed, they believe fulfilled in them the text, “Blessed are ye when they
shall revile you and reproach you and speak all that is evil against you
untruly for my sake.”33 Furthermore, they gather each month as though
to receive the fruit of penitence, since it is written in the Apocalypse,
“And on both sides of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve
fruits, yielding its fruits every month.”34 This, by false interpretation,
they expound as applying to their conventicles.35 They are all bound by
their superstitious and false religion, as we said, to the vow of con¬
tinence. Hence, the devil having suggested to them that they condemn
marriages, they call all other persons sensuous and lewd, and thus they
are cast out from the chaste body of the Church and lose the reward of
their continence....
The Heretics Declare That One Must A bstain from Meat, Eggs, and
Cheese.™—Because no truth adheres to the pernicious traditions of the
heretics, they flavor them in consequence with a certain seasoning of
simulated virtue so that the underlying poison is less perceptible through
the pleasing sweetness of the honey. They put on a certain show of piety
but, exercising the rapacity of wolves in sheep’s clothing, they have
not the virtue of sanctity. For, puffed up by awareness of their flesh to
the piety and humility of angels, they seek to convince others of what
they know not. Yet anyone who regards himself as religious and
restrains not his tongue, but turns his heart astray, possesses a hollow
sanctity. Surely their religion is shown to be false when with unbridled
tongue they utter poisonous words out of a pestilential heart. Bound by
superstition, they insist dogmatically that all meat, eggs, fowl, or cheese
are to be eschewed and that no man nourished by these foods can attain
salvation. Now, in order to spread false doctrine under a veil of good
works, they abstain from these foods at all times and, abstaining also in
repeated fasts from wine, they crucify the flesh, as the Apostle says,
with vices and concupiscenses.37 For they are cunning serpents, huck¬
sters adulterating wine, so that, with a show of simplicity, they proffer
to unwary hearers a draught of death. And what is most dangerous, by
such blindness of the mind are they stricken that, raging like lunatics,
they are not aware that they are afflicted with the malady of error....
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 307

50. Moneta of Cremona: Excerpts from

a Summa against the Cathars
In range of subjects discussed and prolixity of argument on each topic, the
peak of Catholic polemical effort against the Cathars was the summa of
Moneta of Cremona, a Dominican friar who wrote the work about 12411
and from it gained fame in his own day. The summa is divided into five
books. The first is primarily concerned with the arguments of the absolute
dualists and the Catholic replies on the subjects of God and the devil,
creation, angels and men, prophecies, and miracles. The second book goes
over some of the same subjects again, defending the faith against the attacks
of the mitigated dualists. Books III and IV carry on the argument against
both groups of heretics for their errors on Christ, John the Baptist, the
Virgin, the Holy Spirit, the sacraments, and doctrine concerning the end of
the world. The last book defends the Roman Church in its structure and
practice, and for its teaching on the subjects of oaths, secular justice, usury,
and free will. Throughout, the Cathars are the heretics with whom Moneta
is chiefly concerned; the Waldenses receive attention only briefly in the
fifth book.
For each subject of discussion Moneta methodically analyzes the heretical
statements, discusses each of their arguments, whether based on scriptural
or rational grounds, and then passes on to the equally detailed demonstration
of the correctness of orthodox belief. The treatise commands respect, even
awe, at the multiplicity of its arguments, objections, responses, and solutions.
As for the soundness of its evidence about the heretics, it has been uniformly
cited by historians of heresy as a most reliable expose of Catharist doctrine,
primarily because Moneta asserts (p. 2) that he presents no argument that
he has not heard from the lips of heretics or gathered from their writings.
He cites by name Tetricus,2 an absolute dualist, and Desiderius,3 a member
of the sect of Concorezzo, and refers also to certain unidentified heretical
works.4 There is also reason to believe that he exploited the work of orthodox
predecessors for his descriptions of heresy, just as others presumably bor¬
rowed from him.5
Moneta was a professor at the University of Bologna when he joined the
Dominican order in 1218 or 1219 but we have few additional details of his
life. He may have been an inquisitor. The date of his death, perhaps 1250,
is not definitely known.6 The only edition of his summa is that of Ricchini,7
in the Introduction to which (pp. vii-ix) the editor discusses Moneta’s career.
The basic biographical materials are in J. Quetif and J. Echard, Scriptores
ordinis praedicatorum (2 vols., Paris, 1719-1721), I, 122-23. Brief resumes
of Moneta’s life and work will be found in Borst, 17-19, and in the articles
on him in the Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, X, 2211-15 (by M.
Gorce), and the Catholic Encyclopedia, X, 479.
To choose passages which faithfully reflect the information presented by
the summa and its laborious, methodical progress through point after point
of argument is not easy. The excerpts translated here were selected primarily
308 From 1216 to 1325
for their revelation of heretical tenets, but also with the secondary aim of
showing how the argument from scriptural authority was handled. The first
passage is a statement of heretical beliefs—both absolute and mitigated
dualism are summarized—which Moneta placed as an introduction to his
work. The second gives part of the heretical argument and Catholic reply
on the question of free will. The third is another statement of the teaching
of mitigated dualists, with illustrations of how they interpreted certain New
Testament parables to bolster it. The fourth is an excerpt from a long
discussion of the Roman Church; only Moneta’s opening statement and the
arguments which he attributes to the heretics are translated.
The translation is from Monetae Cremonensis adversus Catharos et Val-
denses libri quinque I (Descriptio fidei haereticorum); i.v.l; n.i.1-2; v.l,
passim, ed. by Thomas A. Ricchini (Rome, 1743), pp. 2-6, 63-65, 109-12,
and 389-97 passim.

1241-1244
Book I
Preface: A Description of Heretical Belief
What Heretics May Believe, or Rather, Concoct; First, Those Who
Postulate Two Principles.—So that what follows may be clearer, before
we deal with each particular article in itself, let us describe the erroneous
beliefs of both parties of Cathars (for there are two major groups of
them) and explain how they may agree or disagree.
Some of them assert that there are two principles, without beginning
or end. One they say is the Father of Christ and of all the Just, the God
of Light; the other they believe to be him of whom Christ said in John
14:30, “The prince of this world cometh.” Him they believe to be the
god blinding the minds of unbelievers,8 the god of darkness.
These persons believe that the latter created these four elements
which we can see, namely, earth, water, air, and fire, and all things
which are in this earth, this water, or this air, and that likewise he
created these visible heavens and all their embellishments, the sun, the
moon, and the stars.
They also believe him to be the God of whom Moses spoke in the
first chapter of Genesis (1:1): “In the beginning God created heaven
and earth,” and so on. And those things which are recounted in the
Pentateuch, in the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, and the Paral-
ipomenon they believe were said and done by him. With the exception
of the sixteen prophets, the Psalms, and the five books of Solomon, they
think that all the books of the Old Testament came from him—although
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 309

some of them, indeed, do accept Job and the whole of Esdras, as they
do the aforesaid prophets and the five books mentioned.
These persons believe that these visible and transitory things are of
the evil one by creation. On the other hand, they believe that God, the
Father of Christ and of the Just, is the creator only of everlasting and
eternal things. They believe that He created another four elements of
His own, and all things which are formed thereof, and His own heavens,
and that He embellished them with a sun other than that which we see,
and another moon and other stars.
They also say and believe that this holy and true God had His own
heavenly people composed of three constituents: body, soul, and spirit.
The soul dwelt within the body, but the spirit, which is custodian and
governor of the soul, was not within the body; each soul created by the
good God had its own spirit as custodian.
They also believe that the devil, who is called Satan, being envious
of the All Highest, warily ascended into the heavens of the holy God
and there by his deceitful discourse led astray the souls just referred to,
and drew them to this earth and murky clime; and they believe him to
be the unjust steward spoken of by the Lord in Luke 16:8, “The Lord
commended the unjust steward.”
They also say and teach that this devil, puffed up by the deception
which he had practiced in heaven, presumed to ascend into heaven with
his cohorts and there joined battle with the archangel Michael and was
defeated and driven out. They think that the verse Apocalypse 12:7,
“And there was a great battle in heaven. Michael and his angels fought
with the dragon, and the dragon fought with his angels,” is to be inter¬
preted with reference to this battle. This they take literally.
They believe also that when Satan was expelled from heaven by
Michael, he shut up the souls referred to above into these bodies as in
a prison, and daily he imprisons them.
Also, they speak of these souls as the third part of the stars of
heaven mentioned in Apocalypse 12:4, “The dragon drew the third
part of the stars of heaven,” in consequence of the fact that they are a
third part of the people who, in their opinion, were created by the holy
God—since they assert, as we have already mentioned, that each being
of the heavenly court is made up of the three components aforesaid.
Moreover, these persons believe and say that these souls were cast
out by the Father of the Just for their sin of conspiring with the devil in
310 From 1216 to 1325

heaven; and they believe that it was to redeem these souls that the Lord
Jesus came from heaven to earth.
They also believe that since the advent of Christ these heavenly souls,
which we call demons, do penance in the bodies in this life, as well for
the sin they committed in heaven as for other sins committed in the
present world. The souls undertake this penance, these persons declare,
when they first accept their faith and receive from them the imposition
of the hand [sic]. They say this imposition of hands is the baptism of the
Holy Spirit, not the baptism of water, and they believe that by the im¬
position of the hand each of the heavenly souls receives its own spirit,
the one which in heaven it had for its governance and protection. At
the end, moreover, that is, on the Last Day, when all have accomplished
their penance they shall return together to heaven and recover the bodies
which were abandoned in the land of the heavenly court. As to this
they cite the text of Matthew 24:28, “Wheresoever the body shall be,
there shall the eagles also be gathered together.” This recovery of the
bodies of those who ascend to the heavenly home they declare to be the
resurrection of the dead which is so often mentioned in the Scriptures.
These persons do not believe that either the Son or the Holy Spirit is
God by nature, but that each is only a creature of Almighty God.
They also believe that the Father is greater than the Son and is dif¬
ferent from Him and from the Holy Spirit in substance, and the Son is
greater than the Holy Spirit and different in substance.
These persons differentiate between soul and spirit. They also make
a distinction between the Holy Spirit (spiritum sanctum), the Spirit
Paraclete (spiritum paraclitum), and the Perfect Spirit (spiritum prin-
cipalem).9 They call each spirit which, in their view, God the Father
gave to those [heavenly] souls as custodian a holy spirit; they call those
spirits holy, meaning steadfast, because they remained steadfast and had
been neither deceived nor seduced by the devil. The Paraclete they call
the consoling spirit, which also they receive through the reception of
consolation in Christ; and they assert that there are many Paracletes
created by God. The Perfect Spirit they say is the Holy Spirit. To Him
they believe they refer in the words which they use in prayer: “We adore
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”10 Moreover, they call Him
greater than all other holy spirits and therefore designate Him as Perfect.
They declare that He is of such ineffable beauty that, in Peter’s words,
the angels desire to look upon Him.11
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 311

They also believe that to no one was the Holy Spirit given before
Christ’s resurrection. This other Cathars accept; indeed, with the pos¬
sible exception of some among those who postulate two principles, He
is not believed to have been sent before Pentecost. Of this more will be
said later.
They also believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a heavenly being
who had not a human, but a heavenly body, not of this transitory crea¬
tion. She had a soul, and a spirit appointed for the protection of the soul.
They also say and believe that Christ came down into the womb of
Mary, sent by the Father in His soul, body, and spirit, and He drew
nothing more from the Virgin than that which He bore into her. They
declare that in His time He came forth and was born of the body of
Mary, taking nothing from her. On this account they think that the
words in John 2:4 spoken by Christ, “Woman, what is that to me and
to thee?” as they perversely interpret them, were meant to mean: I have
nothing from you. They also believe that He made no use of actual
food nor did He feel real hunger or thirst.
They believe also that Christ suffered in this heavenly body and died,
yet without sorrow, when the soul, and the spirit also, left the body, as
found in John 19:30: “And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.”
And after three days, they say, that soul and spirit returned to the body
in the sepulcher and thus He rose from the dead. In that very body, they
believe, He appeared to the disciples for forty days and was seen by
them, and they say that this body was palpable and visible to men only
by the power and the wish of God. They say also that in this body He
ascended into heaven on the fortieth day and sits in great triumph at the
right hand of God, because He conquered the devil, who had power
over death; because of this victory, they say, the Father gave Him all
power in heaven and earth. But whether He shall come to judgment in
that same flesh is in question, for some of them believe that judgment
is already delivered.
These persons do not believe that Christ performed any physical
miracle, although, according to the words of the Scriptures, He ap¬
peared to do so. Therefore, they give a spiritual interpretation to the
gift of sight to the blind and the raising of Lazarus; spiritually also
were the sick healed.
These persons deny the resurrection of all bodies, assuming that the
resurrection is of the spiritual bodies of which we have already spoken.
312 From 1216 to 1325

They deny, also, all the sacraments of the Roman Church, namely,
baptism, confirmation, the body of the Lord, the sacrament of penance
as we have it, matrimony, and extreme unction. They deny that the
hardships of the present life or the infirmities of the bodies of this life
are from God, the Father of the Just. They do not believe it permissible
to make use of meat, eggs, or cheese or to swear or kill for any reason.
They also attack the use of images in the Church and the adoration of
the Cross.
These persons deny free will and suppose that the people of God are
ancient (antiquus) ,12 for they do not believe that the holy God creates
new spirits and souls.
They also believe that the prophets prophesied in another world
before the formation of this one and that the prophecies are to be inter¬
preted in their literal sense.
The opinions of those who assume that there are two principles have
been surveyed in part; they will be further expounded when we deal
with individual articles of faith. Now we must examine in part the
opinions of those who assert that there is one Creator. For these
persons agree in some things with the others and in some they disagree.
They differ in declaring that there is one Creator, while the others say
that there are two, for they suppose that there is a prince of the world
whom the Scriptures call the devil and Satan, who, after the creation of
primal matter by God, divided that matter into four elements. From
these he fashioned the external forms of things as we see them. This
subject we will put aside for a moment, since it will be more fully
discussed in the first portion of the second part of this work.
However, they believe that the prince of the world is called the god
of this world, concurring in this with the others, although they do not
believe him to be god by nature but, on the contrary, a creature of the
highest God, Father of the Just. In this they differ from the others.
These persons also agree with those who were discussed above in the
belief that the Old Testament is from the devil. In respect of the
prophets they differ in saying that sometimes the prophets spoke by
their own spirit, sometimes by a wicked spirit, sometimes by the power
of the Holy Spirit. Hence, they accept them only as they see fit. The
group first mentioned [the absolute dualists], indeed, accepts them en¬
tirely and calls them good; these others believe that the prophets were
evil, although they did speak some good words about Christ. The last-
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 313

mentioned persons deny all the sacraments of the Church, just as the
others do, and they suppose the imposition of hands to be the baptism
of the Holy Spirit; in this they agree with the others. They deny also the
resurrection of these bodies just as do the others, differing from them,
however, in that the others conceive, as we have said, of a resurrection
of the heavenly bodies; these persons speak of spiritual bodies, meaning
inward men. They firmly believe that God the Father is greater than the
Son, and the Son greater than the Holy Spirit; in this they are no dif¬
ferent from the others, although they do disagree in believing the Son
and likewise the Holy Spirit to be God by nature, which the first group
denies.
These persons believe, just as the first group does, that Christ brought
his human nature from heaven but that he put it on in the womb of the
Virgin Mary. They disagree among themselves, however, in that some
of them believe that His body was physically constituted from the body
of the Virgin; some among them do not accept this.
These persons accept free will, which the first group denies. Some
of them also suppose—and in this they differ from the first-mentioned
group—that spirits or new souls are not created by God, but they say
that the soul springs from soul, just as flesh from flesh. They also
accept the physical miracles performed by Christ and His disciples,
which the first group denies. They assert that this propagation of souls
is propagation of the angelic seed, that is, of the soul of Adam, who,
they say, was a heavenly angel. He came down to this world and was
forcibly enclosed in an earthly body by the devil, as will be set forth in
the second part of this work.
These persons, like the first-mentioned, forbid the eating of meat,
eggs, and cheese, deny secular justice and the oath. They attack the
Church on the matter of images and the Cross, as do the others....

Chapter V: On Free Will: How the Heretics Attempt to Destroy

the Concept
Now comes the fifth chapter, which treats of free will, the existence
of which in the “people of God”18 these heretics deny. This chapter,
however, is divided into two parts: In the first are recorded their reasons
for the denial; in the second are arguments against them.

1. The Basis for the Denial of Free Will.—First let us examine their
314 From 1216 to 1325

motives for this denial. One reason is that if the people of God had a
will free to choose both good and evil, good and evil would have the
same source and nature. Hence, it would not be necessary to suppose
there are two gods, of whom one would be the principle of all good, the
other the principle of all evil.
A second reason is that God did not have free will. He had no flexi¬
bility for good and for evil. How, then, would the people of God acquire
free will? In this argument they are seen to signify that God cannot
grant free will, capable of turning to both good and evil, because He
himself has it not.
But the solution of this argument is revealed by a parallel case. Now,
the people of God has its being from someone else, created by God. But
whence did they acquire this created condition if God cannot bestow
that which He does not have? Furthermore, God is unchangeable, yet
His creatures change: Psalm 101:27-28, “Thou shalt change them and
they shall be changed, but thou art always the self same.”14
A third reason is that they do not understand how evil can come
from good. But the solution to this is proposed in the first chapter
under the topic dealing with one principle.
A fourth reason is that the Apostle says in Romans 9:16, “Not of
him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth
mercy.” Also in I Corinthians 3:7, “Neither he that planteth is any¬
thing, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.” Philip-
pians 1:6, “He who hath begun a good work in you will perfect it unto
the day of Christ Jesus”; also, Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who
worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish according to his good
will.”
Of the first text, we say that it is to be interpreted in this way: “Not
of him that willeth nor of him that runneth” (“not of him alone” must
be added) means that good will does not arise from the one who
desires, nor does the motion, that is, the effort, come only from him
who runs. It comes from him and from the God “that showeth mercy.”
For were it not right for man to desire or to do good, why should God
command him to desire good and to do it? Why should He reprove him
if he did not do good or desire it—saying through David in Psalm 35:4,
“He would not understand that he might do well”?15
Another interpretation is also possible: “Not of him that willeth, nor
of him that runneth” (“does salvation come” must be added). Salvation
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 315
comes, as Origen says, not by one’s desire, motion, or exertion alone.
Do you seek to understand this? David says in Psalm 126:1, “Unless
the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it.”,# There¬
fore, both the Lord and men keep watch, but men in vain without God;
John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing”; also, I Corinthians 3:9,
“For we are God’s coadjutors.” Also, in I Corinthians 15:10, when the
Apostle said, “I have labored more abundantly than all they,” he added
at once, “yet not I, but the grace of God with me,” as though he would
say: I am not alone, but I am with grace, nor is the grace of God alone,
but it is with me.
If, however, you wish to assert that salvation in no way comes from
human will or activity, why, then, does the Apostle say in Philippians
2:12, “With fear and trembling work out your salvation”? But lest
they think that they might do so alone, he continued [v. 13], “For it is
God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish according to
his good will,” that is, He helps you to work to this end. Thus it appears
that the fourth authority is of no advantage to the heretics.
Similarly, there is no advantage for them in the words, “Who hath
begun [a good work] in you,” and so on. For He, who in the beginning
assisted them in working toward good, will aid them in achieving it.
Furthermore, the Apostle wishes to point out by his words “who hath
begun” that God is the primary cause of all good; hence all good ought
to be attributed to Him and not to others. Similarly, He is shown to be,
by reason of His goodness, the first cause of all such things and the
source of all good; hence, Philippians 2:13, “For it is God,” and so on.
Furthermore, why should He sternly warn the negligent to work out
their own salvation if it were not in their power to seek it and work
toward it? Hebrews 2:2 [-3], “For if the word spoken by angels be¬
came steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a
just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great
salvation?”
In regard to the words “Neither he that planteth [is anything]” and so
on, I ask how this can stand. Were they [Paul and Apollo] not men,
and good men? Therefore, each of them was “something.”
If you say: “Neither he that planteth,” means that he is not “anything-
which-acts” (aliquid faciens), the counterargument is this: Did he not
say there [I Cor. 3:6], “I have planted, Apollo watered”? Therefore,
may you agree with me that the Apostle’s meaning was that neither he
316 From 1216 to 1325
himself, nor Apollo, nor any other person, however holy, gives good¬
ness (which he calls “increase,” that is, something in addition), because
God adds it to the nature of man. For first is man bom, and thus he
accepts existence in good. It was for this reason that the Lord said to
Nicodemus in John 3:7, “You must be born again.”
Heretical argument: On the same point, they cite the text of Romans
7:15, “For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate,
that I do.” Therefore, man, who is part of the good creation, does evil,
but is reluctant. Therefore, he does not have a will free to do evil.
I answer: By the same reasoning, I prove that he does not have will
free to do good, for the Apostle speaks thus, “For I do not that good
which I will.”
Furthermore, the Apostle there adds in verse 17[-18], “Now then it
is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that,”
and so on. Here speaks the inward man, who is part of the good crea¬
tion, saying that he himself does not commit that evil, therefore, it is
not to be charged against him by God; but rather against that which
commits it, meaning the sin which dwells in him.
Furthermore, to whom was that commandment, “Thou shalt not
covet” [Exod. 20:17] given? Was it to the inward man? Certainly! But
why, if the inward man was unable to covet? Yet it was not given to
the outward man. Why not? Because [you say] he is part of the evil
creation. Therefore it was not given to anyone, but this is false. There¬
fore it was given at least to the inward man; therefore he has a will free
to covet. Nor did the Apostle say, I cannot desire this which I do; but
said, I do desire it; for he coveted according to the law of the flesh,
which is in the members of man. Yet he did not covet according to the
law of the mind; hence he says in the same chapter [Rom. 7], verse 25:
“I myself, with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the
law of sin.” The words are those of a righteous man who was in Christ
Jesus, whence he concludes, in Romans 8:1, “There is now therefore
no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not ac¬
cording to the flesh.”
Note, moreover, that although he did not desire evil, he did it, to wit,
the evil of covetousness. Yet he did have the ability to desire it, because
the Apostle says in Romans 6:12, “Let not sin therefore reign in your
mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof.” He would in no wise have
said this to the inward man, unless the heart had the free ability to covet;
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 317

otherwise, why would David say in Psalms 61:11, “Trust not in in¬
iquity,” 17 and so on?
Heretical argument: To the same point, they cite the text of James
3:11, “Doth a fountain send forth out of the same hole sweet and bitter
water?”
To that I make answer in this way. To what are you referring as an
actual fountain? How can you cite this testimony of James against free
will, when he says not a word about free will? If you call God himself,
the Father of the Just, the fountain, you do not have any argument in
that against free will. If you say it means “a fountain of free will,” where
is your authority that a fountain may be called free will?
Furthermore, granting the point, I say: “The fountain”—that is, free
will—“from the same hole”—meaning the mouth—“sends forth sweet
and bitter water”—that is, benediction and malediction. But as James
says in the same epistle, verse 10, “These things [blessing and cursing]
ought not to be so....

Book II
Chapter I: The Bases on Which the Heretics Who Assert That
There Is One Creator Build; These Bases Are Destroyed; Also, on
the Erroneous Opinions of Those Who Postulate a Single Principle,
and How They Seek to Support Them
Throughout this chapter let us inquire whether these visible and
transitory things were formed and differentiated according to their
external forms by one holy God. Although attacking all Cathars, we
direct this chapter particularly against those who, declaring there is
only one God, assert that He created all heavenly things, that is, all
angels, and all things terrestrial. But with this truth the heretics mix a
leaven of heretical depravity by saying that God brought the four ele¬
ments of the world, that is, the matter thereof, into existence from
nothing. This the other Cathars do not admit. The persons discussed
here, however, say that the devil divided this undifferentiated matter
into the four elements, and shaped the forms of things from these four
elements, and differentiated them by their particular, specific, and
varying characteristics. Therefore, God gave material beginning to these
forms; for this reason they also say that God is the Creator of all things
which are visible. They do not, however, except in an obscure way, call
Him the maker of these things. The devil, however, in their view, gave
318 From 1216 to 1325

to these things their specific forms. Thus they designate him exclusively
the maker of visible things because he worked with some [pre-existent]
material; for this reason, they say, he was called prince of the world by
Christ. They do not concede that he is a creator, because they assert
that to create means to make something from nothing.
They say also that the devil is Lucifer, created by God; he was good,
but because of his arrogance before his creator he was cast out of
heaven with many angels who took his part. This we do not deny.
They also assert that sin had its origin from the devil through free
will, which is our belief. However, as they describe it, this is the way
that sin had its origin from him: First Satan came to behold that which
was created by God, and yearned to reign there. This cupidity was the
root of all evils, something, they say, which the Apostle declared in
I Timothy 6:10. Subsequently, he returned and seduced the stars of
heaven, meaning many of the angels; of them, in the view of these
persons, the Apostle spoke in I Corinthians 15:41, “One is the glory
of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the
stars.” For they say that the sun, the moon, and the stars are demons,
adding that the sun and the moon commit adultery once each month
because one reads in astronomical works of the conjunction of sun and
moon. They say also that moisture from that conjunction is sprinkled
through the air and on earth, because they lose clarity. They hold that
those18 are to attain salvation who have been generated from angelic
seed, that is, from Adam, for they believe and say that the spirit of
Adam was an angel. From this spirit was all humankind propagated on
the face of the earth. This they believe the Apostle stated in Acts 17:26,
“And he made of one all mankind to dwell upon the whole face of the
earth.” This has been accomplished.
They also believe that just as flesh by coition is born of flesh so is
spirit procreated from spirit. For they say that the spirit of Adam,
which was a heavenly angel, came by God’s command to see how
Lucifer had divided the elements and had made from them the external
forms of things before there was man on earth. Lucifer seized the angel
and shut him in a fleshly body as in a prison, saying to him: “Pay what
thou owest,” meaning, Subject yourself to human flesh. But Adam,
fallling down, besought him, saying, “Have patience with me,”19 mean¬
ing, Release me and shut me not up in a body of clay. Satan, however,
refused to release him but shut him into the body of clay until he should
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 319

pay the whole debt, that is, lust, and should complete the sin of the
flesh with Eve.

1. On the Parable of the Servant Who Was Unwillingly to Pity His

Fellow Servant.—They seek to adapt to this myth that parable found in
Matthew 18:23 [-28], where is said: “The kingdom of heaven is likened
to a king who would take an account of his servants,” meaning the
angels. “And when he had begun to take the account, one was brought
to him”—that is, Satan—“that owed him ten thousand talents”—that
is, who had done numerous irreparable offenses against him. “And as
he had not wherewith to pay it, his lord commanded that he should be
sold and his wife and children and all that he had and payment to be
made.” To his wife they give the name “Wisdom”; his children they call
the other angels subject to him and cleaving to him; “all that he had,”
they say, meant his natural good characteristics. “But that servant
falling down, besought him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will
pay thee all.’ And the lord of that servant let him go and forgave him
the debt.” For he did not take away from him his wisdom, nor those
who were subject unto him, nor all his natural good characteristics,
because he said, “I will pay thee.” This is interpreted in this way: If
you will have patience with me, if you will permit me to do so, I will
make so many men that you will be able to restore from among them
the full number of your angels which I stole from you. And so he “let
him go,” that is, he gave him leave for six days to make what he wished
from the first-created matter. “But when that servant was gone out,”
he [Satan] performed all that is recounted in Genesis up to the moment
of making man, in whom when made, he subjected the unwilling spirit,
Adam, to human flesh, as we have said. This, in their opinion, is what
Paul meant in Romans 8:20, “For the creature was made subject to
vanity, not willingly.”
Whence, they also expound as pertaining to Adam that parable of the
Lord in Luke 10:30 [-35], “A certain man went down from Jerusalem
to Jericho,” referring to Adam’s spirit because it descended from the
heavenly Jerusalem to the world. “And fell among robbers”—that is,
among malign spirits—“who also stripped him” of the light which he
had. They also say that the sun, the moon, and the stars stole that light
from him, citing for this, “and having wounded him went away, leaving
him half dead.” They say the wounds are sins. Of his being left half
320 From 1216 to 1325

dead they have a triple interpretation: either that his carnal life was
comparable to death, or that he might yet be restored, or that they did
not take away from him his faith, although they precipitated him into
other sins. “And it chanced that a certain priest went down the same
way and seeing him, passed by. In like manner also a Levite, when he
♦

was near the place and saw him, passed by.” The priest means Mel-
chizedek and the Levite Aaron, who, going down “the same way,” that
is, in the same sins, could not help him. “But a Samaritan”—meaning
Christ, making the journey from heaven to earth out of His mercy—
“came near him”—that is, assumed flesh—“bound bound up his wounds”—
wounds
that is, had compassion on his concupiscence and forgave him his sins
a
pouring in oil and e which means penance and the Holy Spirit.
55
“And setting him upon his own beast that is, saving him through
44
His own body 44
brought him to an inn”—meaning the Church and
took care of him. And the next day” that is, after His resurrection
55
“he took out two pence”—which which me
means the Gospel and the gift of the
44
Holy Spirit and gave toi the host”
host”—that is, to the leaders of the
Church—“and said, ‘Take care of him’”—meaning, “Feed my sheep.”20
“And whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will
repay thee.” Paul spent more than was needed because he preached and
lived by the labor of his hands, although Christ had said, “The work¬
man is worthy of his hire,”21 meaning his food. “And at my return”
—namely, at the Day of Judgment—“I will pay it to you,” and to
everyone according to his works.22
These persons say that Satan was the unjust steward who is de¬
scribed in Luke 16:1 [-9], “There was a certain rich man who had a
steward,” that is, the steward is he who is now prince of the world and
at that time was a prince of angels. “And the same was accused unto
him, that he had wasted his goods,” meaning that he had not governed
himself and others according to God’s will. “And he called him and
said to him: ‘How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy
5 55
stewardship, for now thou canst be steward no longer. that is, no
longer may you have dominion over the angels. “And the steward said
within himself, ‘What shall I do, because my lord taketh away from me
the stewardship? To dig I t«n not able, to beg I am ashamed. I know
what I will do, that when I shall be removed from the stewardship they
may receive me into their houses.’ Therefore calling together every one
of his lord’s debtors”—meaning the angels—“he he said to one of them.
them,
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 321
‘How much dost thou owe my lord?’ But he said, ‘A hundred barrels
of oil,’” meaning a hundred prayers. “And he said to him, ‘Take thy
bill and sit down quickly and write fifty,”’ as though he meant to say:
The Lord has imposed too great a burden on thee. “Then he said to
another, ‘And how much dost thou owe?’ who said, ‘A hundred quarters
of wheat,”’ that is, a hundred prayers. “He said to him, ‘Take thy bill,
and write eighty,’” And thus, so the heretics say, Satan, by reducing
their labor, fraudulently drew them to consort with him. Hence, they
followed him in plunging down from the heavens, for “they are the
u
children of this world”—namely, of the malign spirit 55
and evil men,
children of the devil, who are wiser in evil and in transitory things than
the children of light, that is, the children of God. “Therefore, make
55
unto you friends you faithful Christians, meaning the Cathars—“of
the mammon of iniquity,” ** that is, of the transitory riches of this world.
These persons also say that the spirit of Adam was the younger son
of whom one reads in Luke 15:11, “A certain mTffl had two sons.” They
were the aforesaid prince and the spirit of Adam.24 Now we have re¬
counted what they think about Satan and about Adam.
2. On Adam’s Sin: What the Heretics Think It Was.—Now we must
discuss the nature of Adam’s sin, as they see it. For better understanding
of this, one must know that, according to them, Satan shut another angel
into the body of a woman made from Adam’s side while he slept. With
her Adam sinned. Adam’s sin, they declare, was fornication, for they
say that the serpent25 came to the woman and corrupted her with his
tail; and from that coition was Cain born, they say, seeking to prove it
by the statement in I John 3:12 that Cain “was of the wicked one.”
They also say that the woman, having become accustomed to the sin
of the flesh, went to Adam and showed him how he might lie with her,
and persuaded him, and at Eve’s urging Adam in fact committed the
act; and this, they declare, is the eating of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, which, they believe, was designated in veiled words by
Moses as the forbidden fruit. Hence, they also think that because of
this, man and woman always cover those shameful parts. That this was
the reason they cannot prove. (It was done, not because they had sinned
«

with these members but because they were rebels against their superior,
the true God; their baser part, the flesh, rebelled against its superior,
the spirit. Hence, the Apostle says to the Romans, “I consent to the
Law that it is good.”2*) They believe that Abel was born from this
322 From 1216 to 1325

copulation of Adam with Eve, and that in this way flesh from flesh and
soul from soul are propagated as the work of Satan.
These persons believe, moreover, that Satan caused the flood and
that he spoke to Abraham.27
Also, they believe that when Satan desired to destroy the whole
human race, the holy God preserved Noah with his wife, and his sons
with their wives, as seed for mankind, and preserved male and female
of all living creatures and fowls of the air in their kind for the same
reason.
Also they believe that it was Satan, not God himself, who spoke to
Isaac and Jacob and gave the circumcision of the flesh to Abraham and
his seed.
They also believe that Satan destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and
other cities.
They believe also that Satan gave the Law to Moses and led the
people of the Jews through the desert from Egypt into the land of
Canaan, and drowned Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. All the
other events of which we read in the Old Testament, they declare, were
done by him.
Also, just as they believe Moses to have been thfe minister of the
devil and mediator between him and the children of Israel, so they
believe the prophets were Satan’s messengers. If sometimes they said
anything good in reference to Christ, they spoke because forced to do
so by the Holy Spirit; this they also believe was true of Moses when he
spoke of Christ.
They also believe that no one could attain salvation by his acts
before the advent of Christ unless, after Christ, he again assumed flesh
in which he might receive penance and the sacrament of baptism, which
they believe to be nothing other than the imposition of hands. Whence,
they believe that those who are spoken of in Matthew 27 :52, “Many
bodies of the saints that had slept arose,” having received the imposi¬
tion of hands, again did penance. Of them they believe the Apostle
also spoke when he said of Christ in I Corinthians 15:6, “Then he was
seen by more than five hundred brethren.”
Also, they believe that Christ is lesser than the Father in Godhood,
and the Holy Spirit lesser than Christ.
They also believe—with the exception of some of whom we shall
speak later28—that Christ did not put on true flesh of the flesh of Adam.
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 323

They also deny all the sacraments of the Church, the resurrection of the
flesh, and the exercise of temporal authority. They say that an oath is
forbidden under any circumstances. This is their faith, a very false one,
as, with the aid of the grace of God, will appear in separate articles
below....

Book V
Chapter I: What Constitutes the Catholic Church?
With regard to the first chapter, we should be aware that as the
Scriptures attest, the Church appears in this world in two forms: One
is the church of the saints, referred to in Psalm 149:1, “Sing ye to the
Lord a new canticle: Let his praise be in the church of the saints.” The
second is the church of the malignant, of which, as we read, the Holy
Spirit spoke through David in Psalm 25:5, “I have hated the assembly
of the malignant.”2* Like a tree and its root, Holy Church has its root
in faith; hence Romans 1:17, “The just man liveth by faith.” Faith is
the foundation of the spiritual edifice; hence it is said in Hebrews 11:1,
“Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things
that appear not,” and for that reason in I Corinthians 3:11, “Other
foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus,”
that is, the foundation is His faith, by which Christ lives in the hearts
of the faithful, as is said in Ephesians 3:17.
The heretic, however, is wont to ask: What constitutes the Church
of God?
To this the answer is that the heretic first should have asked: What
is the essence of the Church (quid sit ecclesia)! In resolving that ques¬
tion, I say that the Church is the congregation of the faithful. Moreover,
no matter what its enemies may pretend, the Church is the one which is
called Roman. The evidence for this fact comes from examination of its
faith, that faith from which it originates. Faith precedes good works,
hence consideration of faith precedes consideration of works. For, as
the essence of the Church originates from faith, as we have already
remarked, and from faith the Church comes unto works in harmony
with faith, so also the first recognition of the Church is by faith, through
which it is primarily identified and distinguished from the church of the
malignant; hence, Galatians 3:7, “Know ye therefore that they who are
of faith, the same are die children of Abraham”; John 1 :12, “He gave
them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His
324 From 1216 to 1325

name.” Faith, therefore, makes the sons of God. It cleanses their hearts:
Acts 15:9, “Purifying their hearts by faith.” It produces justice, that is,
just works; hence, in Hebrews 11:33 it is said of some that through
faith they wrought justice. It gives life, leading on to the glory of eternal
happiness; hence, John 3:16, “For God so loved the world as to give
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish
but have life everlasting.” In us, faith produces purity, justice, and
glory: purity by which we are restored; justice by which we are led
onward; glory to which we are guided. We are restored from impassable
places to the way; we are led onward from strength to strength; we are
guided, moreover, from exile to our homeland.
Again, the Blessed Peter points out the need to examine faith, in the
third chapter of his first epistle, verse 15, “Being ready always to satisfy
everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.” But
because faith without works is not sufficient for salvation, another test
of the Church must be by works, for in the second place it is known by
works. Since the faith of the Roman Church is attested by the Law and
the prophets, as appears in each article which we have discussed in the
preceding four books, while your faith, O Cathar, not only finds no
witness among them but contradicts them, it is obvious that the Roman
Church, which has faith and good works, two things in which the Church
abides, is the Church of God.
The heretic makes an objection, saying: As we find in Matthew
7 : 17-18, a tree is known by its fruits. The fruit of the Roman Church
is evil; therefore the Roman Church is evil... .s#
Also, the heretic objects, saying: Since the fruit of the Roman faith
is evil, its faith is evil....
The heretic in opposition objects: Ten parts or more of the Roman
Church are evil; therefore it ought to be called the church of the devil
rather than of God....
Also [the heretic says]: The faith of the Roman Church is dead;
hence, so also is the Roman Church. For from dead faith there is no
life. But if the Roman Church is dead, while the Church of God is life.
it is not the Church of God....
Also, the heretic bases an objection on a wicked prelate or some
other wicked Christian, accusing him by quoting James 2:18, “But
some man will say, ‘Thou hast faith, and I have works; show me thy
faith without works and I will show thee by works, my faith.’” ...
Also, the heretic again seeks to prove that the Roman Church is not
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 325
the Church of God because of its many usages which are not recorded
in the Gospel or any other book of the New Testament, nor is there
proof that they were practiced in the primitive Church....
Again, to defame the Church the heretic quotes Matthew 23:4 about
the Pharisees and scribes among the Jews, “For they bind heavy and
insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with a
finger of their own they will not move them.” Such, they say, are the
priests of the Roman Church....
They also cite against the Church the words of the Lord to the scribes
and Pharisees, Matthew 23:13, “But woe to you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for
you yourselves do not enter in, and those that are going in you suffer
not to enter.” Now they say that we are like them because we do not
enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, we do not enter the Church of
God through faith, nor do we allow those who wish to enter to do so....
This they say because we do not join their congregation, which they
call the kingdom of heaven....
They also base an objection on the Lord’s words to the scribes and
Pharisees in Matthew 23:29-33, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! that build the sepulchers of the prophets and adorn the
monuments of the just and say, ‘If we had been in the days of our
fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of
the prophets.’ Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you
are the sons of them that killed tihe prophets. Fill ye up then the measure
of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee
from the judgment of hell?” Christ’s intent was to say that as they were
the children of murderers in the natural sense, to which they bore
witness, so also were they their children in imitating them. For the
fathers killed the prophets, and these, who built and adorned the
sepulchers, reproving the evil deeds of the fathers, filled up the measure
of the fathers because they put Lord Jesus and His apostles to death.
In saying to them, “Fill up,” and so on, He did not bid them do so but
predicted that which would be done, since He said: “You will fill up,”
using the imperative for the indicative mood. The heretics say that the
priests of the Roman Church, whom they call modern Pharisees, fired
by the same wrath, plot the same kind of murders. They say that the
Pharisees among the Jews, whom they call the fathers of our priests,
killed the apostles, persecuted the primitive church of the saints; our
priests build and adorn the sepulchers of the slain and construct altars
326 From 1216 to 1325
over them. But also fired by the same wrath, they fill up the measure
of the Pharisees by murders and by persecuting the church of the
heretics....
Also, the heretic says that the Roman Church talks about good but
does it not. If it does any good thing, its purpose is that the eyes of men
may behold it. Hence, it decorates the front and sides of the altar, but
not the back, which is not exposed to men’s eyes. It says long prayers,
so as to lay hold of the goods of widows, and that it may collect
tithes and the first fruits of oil and beasts from a prince. Of all these
things Christ harshly accused the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew,
chapter 23.
Also, the heretic says: If the head be good, how astonishing that it
has such evil members....
Also, the heretic says: The Church should suffer persecution in this
world, not practice it on others. But the Roman Church persecutes
others, while itself remaining free from persecution....
Also, the heretic objects: The Church of Christ, threatened by per¬
secution, was often hungry and thirsty, was naked and buffeted, and
made weak; it worked with its hands, not seeking the wealth of others,
gladly giving of its own to Christ’s poor, so that there was no one in
want in their midst. It was cursed and it blessed; hence I Corinthians
4:11, “Even unto this hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked
and are buffeted,” and so on. The Roman Church is not in this condi¬
tion. For the Roman Church is rich in great possessions, in luxuries; it
is garbed in purple and linen, and it has splendid feasts every day. It is
untroubled and is established in this world, works not with its hands;
but being itself wanton and idle, devours the labors of others. It is
blessed by others and it curses....
Also, they say: The Church of Christ was scorned and blasphemed
by the world; on the other hand, the world honors the Roman
Church....
Also, they say that the Church of Christ first gave instruction before
it would baptize anyone, as is found in Matthew 28:19, “Going there¬
fore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them,” and so on. The Roman
Church baptizes before it teaches, as is obvious in the case of infants.
Furthermore, Christ and His disciples are never known to have baptized
anyone who lacked faith and the ability to reason. But the Roman
Church does so....
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 327
Also, they attempt to prove that the Roman Church is not the Church
of God by the example of the widow to whom there is reference in
I Timothy 5:9, “Let a widow be chosen of no less than threescore years
of age,” and so on. The Church of God should choose such a woman,
but the Roman Church does not... .31
Also, the heretic says: The Church of God did not kill or swear. The
Roman Church does so....
Also, the heretic says that the children of the Roman Church rob and
steal, contrary to God’s command....
Also, they object that many there are in the Roman Church who are
in want, half dead from hunger, thirst, and cold, on whom the wealthy
members of the Roman Church have no pity, but allow them to weep,
to be afflicted by these sufferings. In what way does the love of God
abide in such persons? Not at all, as also is said in I John 3:17, “He
that hath the substance of this world,” and so on. Yet if the love of God
does not abide in them, how can they be the Church of God?
Also, the heretic objects that the Roman Church has multiplied and
spread throughout the world, but the Church of God, on the contrary,
is few in number: Matthew 7:14, “Strait is the way that leads to
life....”
Also, the heretic objects, saying: The Church of Christ is called a
heresy by the priests and their leaders, as appears in Acts 24:14, where
Paul says to Felix, the governor, “But this I confess to thee, that ac¬
cording to the way which they call a heresy so do I serve the Father
and my God,” and so on....
Also, everywhere Paul was contradicted, as described in Acts, chapter
28. But the Roman Church is called holy and Catholic by men of this
world, and is treated with favor everywhere in the world.
Also, the heretic objects, saying: Orders such as the Augustinian and
Benedictine orders were not present in the Church of Christ. They exist
in the Roman Church....
Also, in the Church of God there were only bishops, sons, priests or
elders, and deacons. There were no archbishops, primates, cardinals;
no archeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, doorkeepers; no precentors
or sacristans.
Also the heretics object: There is only one mode of salvation, since
there is only one way of salvation, according to Christ, who said in
John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No man cometb
328 From 1216 to 1325

to the Father but by me.” Yet the way of the Roman Church is multi¬
fold, for there is one way for monks, another for canons regular, an¬
other for other clerics. There is one for the Friars Preachers and another
for the Friars Minor. Therefore, the Roman Church is not the way of
salvation....
They say also that no one may be saved but in Christ’s teaching,
which the Apostle transmitted....
Also, they seek in another way to prove that the Roman Church is
not the Church of God, because it blesses the carroccio82 prepared for
unjust combat, that is, for battles against brothers and neighbors, and
so urges men to fight unjustly.
If we reply to them, to the contrary, that some battles against
neighbors and brothers are just, they retort: When several cities fight
against each other, surely the cause of one of them is not just. Why,
then, does the prelate bless the carroccio of this faction? ...
The heretic also objects that the Roman Church is not the Church of
God because it is placed before others and set over them, although the
Church of God ought, by the testimony of Peter [I, 2:13], be subject
to every creature....
1. What Constitutes the Church? How the Heretics Prove That the
Roman Church Is Not the Church of God.—In execration of the Roman
Church also, the heretic cites the text of Apocalypse 17:3, where John
says that he saw “a woman sitting upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of
the names of blasphemy”; and, to sum it up briefly, the Cathars, and
the Leonists as well, believe that all or almost all of what is found in
the Apocalypse, chapters 17, 18, and in the first part of chapter 19 to
the words of verse 3, “And her smoke ascended forever and ever,” was
recorded against the Roman Church. For they interpret “the beast” and
“the woman” as references to the Roman Church. The beast, we read,
was scarlet; likewise, we find in verse 4 that the woman was clothed
with “scarlet and purple, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and
pearls, having a golden cup in her hand.” These words are applicable
to the lord pope, who is the head of the Roman Church. The woman
“drunk with the blood of the saints” (verse 6) is referred to in the same
connection. This symbol they attach to the Roman Church because it
orders their death, for they believe that they are saints. At the end of
the chapter [verse 18] one reads, “And the woman which thou sawest
is the great city which has kingdom over the kings of the earth” [Apoc.
50. Moneta’s Summa against Cathars 329

17:18]. They seek to prove their point from the fact that that woman
is called Babylon at the end of chapter 16[:19], and in Apocalypse
18:2, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen,” and because Peter, at the
end of his [first] epistle, 5:13, says, “The church that is in Babylon,
elected together with you,” that is, in Rome....

51. The Summa of Rainer ius Sacconi

Rained us Sacconi, onetime heretic become Dominican friar and inquisitor,
wrote the most widely circulated tract on the Cathars and Waldenses of the
thirteenth century.1 He was a native of Piacenza, that city so torn by civic
and religious strife, but after many years in heresy—“formerly a heresiarch”
he says of himself—he was converted, about the year 1245, by the influence
of Peter of Verona, and entered the Dominican order. The careers of these
two men then ran together for several years. In 1252 Rainerius was also a
target of the plot which took Peter’s life,2 but he escaped. He later sat with
the commission investigating the miracles attributed to his martyred associate
and, as inquisitor, took part in the proceedings against the assassins. From
1254 to 1259 he was inquisitor for Lombardy. The last record of him is in a
papal letter of July, 1262.
In 1250, Rainerius wrote his Summa de Catharis et Pauperibus de Lug-
duno [summa on the Cathars and the Poor of Lyons]. Its great historical
value in details of Catharist churches and sects and in the catalogue of their
beliefs 3 is qualified only by a certain terseness and by the obvious antipathy
of the convert for his former coreligionists. As Father Dondaine remarks,
without Rainerius’s description of the doctrinal system of John of Lugio,
our understanding of an important heretical work, the Liber de duobus
principiis (see No. 59), would be much more difficult.
The translation is of the summa as printed by Antoine Dondaine, in his
preface to Un Trait6 nio-manichien du XIlIe siecle: Le Liber du duobus
principiis, suivi d’un fragment de rituel cathare (Rome, 1939), pp. 64-78,4
by permission of the Istituto storico domenicano di S. Sabina. For our
comments on the author we have relied heavily on the sketch of his career
in that same work.5

1250

THE SUMMA OF BROTHER RAINERIUS OF THE ORDER OF

PREACHERS ON THE CATHARS AND THE POOR OF LYONS

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Although at one time sects of heretics were numerous, by the grace
330 From 1216 to 1325
of Jesus Christ they have been almost completely destroyed; yet, two in
particular are now found, one of which is called the Cathars or Patar-
ines, the other the Leonists or Poor of Lyons. Their beliefs are set forth
in the pages which follow.
[1] O/i the Various Sects of the Cathars.—Now it should be noted at
the outset that the foremost sect, to wit, the Cathars, is divided into
three parts or principal groups, the first of which is called the Alban-
enses, the second the Concorezzenses, the third the Bagnolenses; all these
are in Lombardy. Other Cathars, whether in Tuscany or in the March
[of Treviso] or in Provence, do not differ in beliefs from the Cathars
just named or from some part of them. For all the Cathars have
general beliefs in which they agree and particular ones in which they
differ. We shall discuss all of these and first those which they hold in
common.
[2] On the General Beliefs of the Cathars. The general beliefs of
all Cathars are as follows: That the devil made this world and every¬
thing in it. Also, that all the sacraments of the Church, namely, baptism
of actual water and the other sacraments, are of no avail for salvation
and that they are not the true sacraments of Christ and His Church but
are deceptive and diabolical and belong to the church of the wicked.
How many sacraments, which ones, and of what sort the aforesaid
heretics do have is recounted below. Also, a belief common to all
Cathars is that carnal matrimony has always been a mortal sin and that
in the future life one incurs no heavier a penalty for adultery or incest
than for legitimate marriage, nor indeed among them should anyone be
more severely punished on this account. Also, all Cathars deny the
future resurrection of the body. Also, they believe that to eat meat, eggs,
or cheese, even in pressing need, is a mortal sin; this for the reason that
they are begotten by coition. Also, that taking an oath is in no case per¬
missible; this, consequently, is a mortal sin. Also, that secular authorities
commit mortal sin in punishing malefactors or heretics. Also, that no
one can attain salvation except in their sect. Also, that all children,
even the baptized, will endure no lighter punishment in eternity than
will thieves and murderers.8 On this point the Albanenses seem to dis¬
agree somewhat, as will be explained below. Also, they all deny
purgatory.
[3] On the Sacraments of the Cathars.—The Cathars, indeed, like
apes who try to imitate the acts of man, have four sacraments, though
51. The Summa of Rainerius 331

false and vain, unlawful and sacrilegious. They are the imposition of
the hand, blessing of bread, penance, and consecration,7 which will be
treated in this sequence.
[4] On the Imposition of the Hand.—The imposition of the hand is
called by them the consolamentum, spiritual baptism, or baptism of the
Holy Spirit. According to them, without it mortal sin is not forgiven,
nor is the Holy Spirit imparted to anyone; both of these occur only
when the rite is performed by them. But the Albanenses differ a little
from the others in this; for they say that in this rite the hand accom¬
plishes nothing (since according to them it was itself created by the
devil, as will be explained below), but only the Lord’s Prayer, which
those who impose the hand repeat at the time.8 All the other Cathars,
however, say that both, that is, the imposition of the hand and the
Lord’s Prayer, are necessary and requisite for the rite. It is also the
common belief of all Cathars that no remission of sins is accomplished
by that imposition of the hand if those who impose the hand are in any
mortal sin at the time. This imposition of the hand is performed by at
least two persons, and not only by their prelates but by those under
them, even, in case of need, by Cathar women.
[5] On the Breaking of Bread.—The blessing of bread by the Cathars
is a certain bread-breaking which they perform daily at the morning and
evening meal. This breaking of bread is done thus: When the Cathars,
men and women, have come to the table, they remain standing while
they say the Lord’s Prayer. Meanwhile, one who has precedence in
length of membership or rank9 holds a loaf, or several if necessary for
the group which happens to be present, and with the words, “May the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be always with us all,” he breaks the
loaf or loaves and distributes the bread to all those at the table, not
only to Cathars but also to their believers, to thieves, adulterers, and
murderers. The Albanenses, however, say that the actual bread is not
blessed nor can it receive any blessing, since according to them the
bread itself is the creation of the devil. In this they differ from all the
others, who say that the bread is truly blessed. Nevertheless, none of
them believes that the bread is changed into the body of Christ.
[6] On the False Penance of the Cathars.—The next point of discus¬
sion is the nature of the penance of the Cathars. The penance of the
Cathars is altogether false and vain, deceptive and poisonous, as is
shown below. For in true penance three things are requisite: contrition
332 From 1216 to 1325
of heart, confession of the lips, and satisfaction by works. But I, Brother
Rainerius, formerly a heresiarch but now by the grace of God a priest
in the Order of Preachers, although unworthy, say positively and testify
before God, who knows that I do not lie, that not one of these three
appears among the Cathars or in their penance. For the poison of error
which they have sucked from the mouth of the old serpent does not let
them feel any sorrow for their sins. This error is fourfold, namely, that
eternal glory is not lessened for any penitent by any sin, that the punish¬
ment of hell is not increased thereby for the impenitent, that for no one
is purgatorial fire reserved, and that guilt and penalty are blotted out
by God through the imposition of the hand. Judas the traitor will be
punished no more severely than a child one day old, but all will be
equal in glory as well as in punishment. This they believe, except the
Albanenses, who say that each one will be restored to his former status,
although not by his own merits, and that in each kingdom, whether of
God or of the devil, some are greater than others.
And I add this further statement, that many of them who have been
infected by the errors set forth above often grieve when they recall that
they did not indulge their passions more frequently in the days when
they had not yet professed the heresy of the Cathars. Moreover, this is
why many believers, both men and women, no more fear to give them¬
selves to sister or brother, daughter or son, niece or nephew, relation
by blood or marriage, than to their own wife or husband. But from acts
of this kind some of them are perhaps restrained by horror or by a
natural human feeling of shame.
That they do not feel contrition for sins committed before the pro¬
fession of their heresy is clearly proved by the fact that they make
restitution to no man for usury, theft, or rapine; on the contrary they
keep the gain for themselves, or rather they leave it to their children or
relatives who are still of the world. They say that usury is no sin.
Furthermore, I say positively that during the seventeen years when I
was in intimate converse with them, I did not see any one of them pray
secretly, apart from the others, or show himself contrite for his sins, or
weep, or beat his breast and say, “Be gracious, O Lord, to me, a sinner,”
or anything of this sort, which might be a sign of contrition. Never do
they implore the aid or intervention of angels, or of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, or of the saints, nor fortify themselves by the sign of the Cross.
[7] On the Confession of the Cathars.—Now to be considered is the
51. The Sumnta of Rainerius 333

confession of the Cathars: what it is and how constituted, when they

make it, and to whom they confess. Their confession is made in this
manner: “I am here before God and before you to make confession and
to take upon myself the guilt for all my sins which in any way are in me
and to obtain pardon from God and from you all.” The confession is
made publicly and in the presence of all who have met together, where
oftentimes there are a hundred or more Cathars, men and women, and
their believers. Every one of them makes the confession quoted when
he receives the imposition of the hand described above, reciting it
primarily to their prelate, who holds the Gospels or the whole New
Testament before his breast. After absolution has been granted, the
prelate places the Book, and the other Cathars who are present put
their right hand upon the convert’s head; then they begin their prayers.
When, moreover, any one of them, after he has received the imposi¬
tion of the hand, commits a sin of the flesh or any other which is a
mortal sin according to their belief, he need confess that sin only and
no others and may again receive the imposition of the hand, privately,
from his prelate and at least one associate.10
Also, confession of venial sins is made in this manner: One says in
a loud voice, speaking for all who are bowed to the ground before the
prelate, who holds the Book before his breast, “We come before God
and before you to confess our sins, for we have sinned much in word
and in deed, in our purposes and in thoughts,” and more of this sort.
Whence it is clearly apparent that all the Cathars die in their sins with¬
out confession. In this fashion they confess once a month if they can
conveniently do so.
The next question is whether the Cathars do works in satisfaction of
the sins which they committed before they professed heresy. To this I
say no, although this may perchance seem strange to the undiscerning.
For they do pray often and they fast and they always abstain from
meat, eggs, and cheese, all of which seem to be in the nature of acts to
amend for their sins; and of them they often boast vaingloriously. But
there is among them a threefold error which prevents the said works
from being reparations. The first is that guilt and punishment are totally
wiped out by their imposition of the hand and by prayer, or by prayer
alone according to the Albanenses, as was stated above. The second is
that God inflicts on no one purgatorial punishment, the existence of
which they totally deny, or temporal punishment, which they think is
334 From 1216 to 1325
inflicted by the devil in this life. Here also we must say that from the
time they become Cathars the works referred to are not required of
them for penance or for the remission of sins.11 The third is that every¬
one is bound of necessity to perform these works as if they were the
commands of God. For instance, a boy ten years old who had never
committed any mortal sin at all before he became a Cathar is in the
same class as an old man who had never ceased from sinning. For no
Cathar among them would be punished any more severely if he drank
poison from a desire to commit suicide than if, on a physician’s advice,
he ate a fowl to avoid death or for some other imperative reason; nor,
in their view, would he be punished more severely in the hereafter.
They speak in the same way about matrimony, as has already been
explained above.
Also, they do little or no almsgiving, none to outsiders, except to
avoid scandal among their neighbors and to be held in esteem by them,
and little to their own needy. The reason for this is threefold. The first
is that they do not thereby expect greater glory in the hereafter or for¬
giveness of their sins. The second is that almost all of them are very
avaricious and grasping. This is why the poor among them, who in time
of persecution do not have the necessities of life or anything with which
to repay those who harbor them for goods or houses destroyed on their
account, can hardly find anyone who is then willing to receive them;
but wealthy Cathars can find many. Wherefore every one of them ac¬
cumulates wealth if he can and saves it.
Furthermore, the question of their prayer should not be overlooked;
the times at which they think it must be said, most particularly when
they partake of food and drink. Since many of them when ill have some¬
times asked those who nursed them not to put any food or drink into
their mouths if the invalids could not at least say the Lord’s Prayer, it
is quite evident that many of them thus commit suicide.
So, from what has been said above, it is abundantly clear that the

for their sins or confess them or do works in satisfaction of them

(although they do greatly afflict themselves), and that for their errors
they will be heavily punished throughout eternity.
Now we have to deal with the fourth and last sacrament of the
Cathars, namely, consecration. First, how many offices they have;
second, their names; third, the function of each office; fourth and fifth,
51. The Summa of Rainerius 335

by whom and how they are constituted; and last is added the number
and location of the churches of the Cathars.
[8] On the Offices of the Cathars and Their Duties.—The offices of
the Cathars are four. He who has been established in the first and
highest office is called bishop; in the second, the elder son; in the third,
the younger son; and in the fourth and last, the deacon. The others
among them, who are without office, are called Christian men and
women.
[9] On the Functions of the Bishops.—It is the duty of the bishop
always to take the first place in everything they do, namely, in the im¬
position of the hand, the breaking of bread, and beginning the prayer.
In the absence of the bishop, the elder son presides, and in the absence
of the bishop and the elder son, the younger son does so.
Moreover, these two sons, together or separately, go about visiting
all the Cathar men and women who are in the bishop’s charge, and all
persons owe them obedience. Likewise, the deacons preside and per¬
form all functions, each among his charges, in the absence of the bishop
and the sons. It is to be noted that the bishops and the sons have par¬
ticular deacons in their own particular cities, especially where Cathars
abide.
[10] On the Duty of the Deacons.—It is also the function of the
deacons to hear from those in their charge the confession of venial sins,
which is made once a month, as mentioned above, and to give them
absolution by enjoining on them a three-day fast or one hundred genu¬
flections. This is called the Service, or, in other words, to impose
(caregare) the Service.
[11] How the Bishop Is Ordained.—The offices just described are
conferred by the bishop and also, with the bishop’s consent, by the sons.
The ordination of a bishop once usually took place in this fashion:
When a bishop died, the younger son ordained the elder son as bishop,
the latter thereupon ordained the younger son as elder son. Then a
younger son was elected by all the prelates and those in their charge
who were gathered at the place set for the election, and he was ordained
as younger son by the bishop. The ordination of the younger son has
not been changed among them. But that described above for the bishop
has been changed by all the Cathars dwelling on this side of the sea,12
who say that by the former ordination the son would appear to install
the father, which seems rather unnatural. Consequently, it is now done
336 From 1216 to 1325
in a different way, namely, the bishop before his death consecrates the
elder son as bishop. Upon the death of either one of these, the younger
son is made elder son and bishop on the same day. Thus almost every
church of the Cathars has two bishops. Hence, John of Lugio, who is
one of those so consecrated, always describes himself in his letters,
“John, by grace of God elder son and ordained bishop,” etc. Never¬
theless, both ordinations are manifestly reprehensible, for a carnal son
never appoints his parent and nowhere do we read that one and the
same church had two bishops at the same time, just as one woman
does not legally have two husbands.
[12] The Method of Ordination.—All the offices described above are
conferred by the imposition of the hand, and that grace of conferring
the offices listed and of bestowing the Holy Spirit is assigned to their
bishop alone, or to any one of them who has precedence and who
officiates by holding the New Testament over the head of the one on
whom the hand is imposed.
[13] A Notable Uncertainty among Them.—Hence, all Cathars labor
under very great doubt and danger of soul. To specify, if their prelate,
especially their bishop, may secretly have committed some mortal sin
—and many such persons have been found among them in the past-—
all those upon whom he has imposed his hand have been misled and
perish if they die in that state. In order to avoid this peril all the
churches of the Cathars, excepting only one or two, have allowed the
consolamentum for the second, or even for the third time, that is, the
imposition of the hand, which is their baptism, as described above.
These facts are a matter of common report among them.
[14] These Are the Churches of the Cathars.—There are in all six¬
teen Cathar churches but, reader, do not blame me for calling them
churches, rather blame them, since this is how they refer to themselves:
The church of the Albanenses or of Desenzano,13 the church of Con-
corezzo, the church of the Bagnolenses or of Bagnolo, the church of
Vicenza or of the March [of Treviso], the church of Florence, the
church of the Spoletan Valley, the church of France, the Toulousan
church, the church of Carcassonne, the Albigensian church, the church
of Sclavonia, the church of the Latins of Constantinople, the church of
the Greeks of the same place, the church of Philadelphia in Romania,
the church of Bulgaria, the church of Drugunthia. All sprang from the
last two named.
51. The Summa of Rainerius 337
[15] The Places Where They Are Located.—The first group, namely,
the Albanenses dwell in Verona and several cities of Lombardy and
number about five hundred of both sexes. Those of Concorezzo are
scattered throughout almost all of Lombardy, and there are fifteen
hundred or more of both sexes. The Bagnolenses are at Mantua, Brescia,
Bergamo, and in the region of Milan (but in very small numbers), and
in Romagna; there are about two hundred of them. The church of the
March [of Treviso] persists at Vicenza14 but has no members at Verona;
there are about one hundred of them. Those of Tuscany and of the
Spoletan Valley number not quite a hundred. The church of France is
in Verona and Lombardy, about one hundred and fifty strong. The
Toulousan church, the Albigensian, and that of Carcassonne, together
with some who were formerly of the church of Agen, which has been
almost totally destroyed, number nearly two hundred. The church of
the Latins in Constantinople comprises less than fifty people. Likewise,
the church of Sclavonia, that of Philadelphia, and those of the Greeks,
of Bulgaria, and of Drugunthia, number altogether something under
five hundred. O reader, you can safely say that in the whole world there
are not as many as four thousand Cathars of both sexes,15 and the
computation given here has been made many times in the past among
them.
[16] On Beliefs Peculiar to the Albanenses.—An account has been
given in the preceding of the beliefs and sacraments common to the
Cathars and also of their ministers. It remains now to describe the
ideas peculiar to each group, beginning with the church of the Alban¬
enses, which is also called by the name of Desenzano, because they err
in more ways than the others.
First, then, it is important to note that these Albanenses are divided
into two groups with contrary and different opinions. The head of one
group is Belesmanza of Verona,15 their bishop, whom most of the older
and a few of the younger persons of that sect follow. The leader of the
other group is John of Lugio of Bergamo,17 their elder son and ordained
bishop. He is followed, in distinction from the first group, by the
younger men and a few of the older ones; this group is somewhat larger
than the first.
[17] On the Beliefs of Belesmanza.—The first group maintains the
old beliefs, which all the Cathars ahd Albanenses used to hold in the
period of approximately a.d. 1200 to 1230. Thus, their peculiar beliefs.
338 From 1216 to 1325
besides the common ones set forth above, are these:
That there are from eternity two principles, to wit, of good and
of evil.
Also, that the Trinity, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, is not one God, but that the Father is greater than the Son and
than the Holy Spirit.
Also, that each principle, or each God, created his own angels and
his own world, and that this world and all which is in it was created,
made, and formed by the evil deity.
Also, that the devil with his angels ascended into heaven and there,
after doing battle with the archangel Michael and the angels of the good
God, carried off a third part of the creatures created by God. These he
implants daily in human bodies and in those of lower animals, and also
transfers them from one body to another until such time as all shall be
brought back to heaven. According to these heretics, these beings
created by God are called “the people of God,” “souls,” “the sheep of
Israel,” and also by many other names.
Also, that the Son of God did not acquire human nature in reality
but only its semblance from the Blessed Virgin, who, they say, was an
angel. Neither did He really eat, drink, or suffer, nor was He really dead
and buried, nor was His resurrection real, but all these things were in
appearance only, as one reads of Him in Luke, “being (as it was sup¬
posed) the son of Joseph.”18 They teach the same about ail the miracles
which Christ performed.
Also, that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the fathers of old,
and John the Baptist, were enemies of God and ministers of the devil.
Also, that the devil was the author of all of the Old Testament except
these books: Job, the Psalms, the books of Solomon, of Jesus the son
of Sirach, of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, and of the twelve
prophets. Some of these, they say, were written in heaven, to wit, those
which were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which, they
say, was the heavenly land.
Also, that the world will never come to an end.
Also, that the “future” judgment has already been made and will
not be made again.
Also, that hell and eternal fire or eternal punishment are in this
world only and nowhere else.
In general, all the Albanenses in the time we have stated held the
51. The Summa of Rainerius 339

beliefs described above, except those who were less well informed, to
whom special points were not revealed.
[18] On Beliefs Peculiar to John of Lugio.—Next to be described
here are the beliefs of the John of Lugio mentioned above and his fol¬
lowers. It should first be noted that John still holds some of the beliefs
mentioned above, some of them he has completely changed for the
worse, and some other errors he has devised for himself, as appears
below.
[19] On the Two Principles.—This John of Lugio, an Albanensian,
asserts that there are from eternity two principles, or gods, or lords,
namely, one of good and the other of evil, but in rather a different
fashion from the earlier ideas, as will soon be apparent. He completely
spurns the Trinity and its unity in God as held in the Catholic faith.
[20] The Names He Gives to the Evil Principle.—The first principle
of evil, he maintains, is called by many names in the Holy Scriptures.
It is called malice, iniquity, cupidity, impiety, sin, pride, death, hell,
calumny, vanity, injustice, perdition, confusion, corruption, and fornica¬
tion. And he also says that all the evils named are gods or goddesses,
that they have their being from the malice which, he asserts, is a first
cause, and that this first cause is signified from time to time by the
vices named.19
Moreover, he says that the evil principle is denoted by “the tongue,”
which St. James characterizes as “an unquiet evil, full of deadly
poisons”;20 likewise by “day,” whereof the Lord says in the Gospel,
“Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.”21 It is also referred to in that
phrase of the Apostle in his second epistle to the Corinthians, “/r is,
and It is not.”2* It is called also Mount Seir, concerning which it is
said in Ezechiel, “Because thou hast been an everlasting enemy of the
Lord.”23 It is also said to be the belly, whereof the Apostle says, “Whose
God is their belly.”24
He says further that the idols of the nations of which one reads
throughout the entire Old Testament are really evil gods, that is, malign
spirits, and that the Gentiles made images of them the better to worship
them. But why say more? It disgusts me to record the many fabulous
things which this John has written about the above-mentioned evils and
idols in an attempt to buttress his errors.
[21] On the Beliefs of John of Lugio about Creation and What
Creation Is, According to Him*5—What this John believes about the
340 From 1216 to 1325

creator of all things visible and invisible remains to be told. First, what
creation is; second, whether created things were made or created from
nothing; third, whether creatures of the good God were created abso¬
lutely good and pure, without any evil; fourth, whether anyone ever
had freedom of will.
According to him, to create is to make something from some pre¬
existent matter, and it is always so considered, never to make from
nothing. And he distinguishes a threefold creation: First, from good to
better; according to this distinction, Christ was created or made by the
Father, whence Isaiah, “I the Lord have created Him,”28 and, the
Apostle says, “made a high priest forever.”27 Secondly, to change from
evil to good is called “to create,” in accord with the word of the Apostle,
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus,”28 and the sen¬
tence in Genesis, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth,”20
which John explains thus: “In the beginning,” that is, in the Son who
says: “[I am] the beginning, who also speak unto you.”30 And John
explicitly says that at that time God the Father created heaven and earth,
not from nothing but from something to something good, as with those
of whom the Apostle says, “Created in Christ Jesus in good works.”31
Thirdly, creating also refers to making bad into worse. In support of
this he adduces that passage in The Code [of Justinian] under the title
De haereticis et Manichaeis: “All heresies forbidden by divine laws and
imperial constitutions,” and so on, as far as “to create ministers because
they are not.”32 And so, he says, all creatures exist from eternity, good
creatures with the good God and evil with the evil god; that creators do
not precede creatures in eternity except causally; and that creatures are
from God from eternity, like the splendor or rays of the sun which does
not precede its rays in time, but only as cause or by nature.
Also, he thinks that the good God has another world wherein are
people and animals and everything else comparable to the visible and
corruptible creatures here; marriages and fornications and adulteries
take place there, from which children are bom. And what is even more
base, there the people of the good God, against His command, have
taken foreign women to wife, that is, daughters of a strange god or of
evil gods, and from such shameful and forbidden intercourse have been
bora giants33 and many other beings at various times.
[22] Whether the Good God Created His Creatures Free of Evil.—
The next point is whether the good God created His creatures pure.
51. The Summa of Rainerius 341
without any evil. In this connection it is necessary to pass over many
blasphemies uttered by this John, such as that God is not omnipotent.
He says, however, that God wills and can do all good as far as lies in
Him and in His dreatures, who of necessity render him obedience, but
that this will and power of God are hindered by His enemy.
Also, that each of these gods has been active against the other from
eternity and that the evil cause, that is, the evil god, has from eternity
attacked the true God and His Son and all His works. In support of
these points he cites many authorities, such as that speech of the Lord
to Satan in Job, “Thou hast moved me against Job, that I should afflict
him without cause”;34 and again, Job to God, “Thou art changed to
be cruel toward me.”85
Also, he says that he who is chief in evil is more powerful than the
creatures who are subjects of the highest God of good; whence, he
concludes from these premises that the good God could not make His
creatures perfect even though He wished to. And this befell Him and
His creatures because of the opposition of the evil god, who from
eternity has forced into them his own impulse {actum) or a certain
malice, from which evil they have the capability of sinning. In support
of this he cites that passage in Ecclesiasticus, “He that could have trans¬
gressed, and hath not transgressed, and could do evil things, and hath
not done them,”38 the whole of which he simply explains as referring to
Christ; and that passage from Job, “In his angels he found wicked¬
ness,”87 and again, “The stars are not pure,”38 and so on; and the pas¬
sage in the beginning of Genesis, “Now the serpent was more subtle than
any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.”33 From
this he draws the inference: Therefore all the beasts of the field are
endowed with cunning, but the serpent more than all the others, and
therefore through him has deceitfulness come about. In addition to the
foregoing, he also makes another assertion on his own authority, to wit,
that there is nothing which has free will, not even God most high, since
even He could not carry out His own will because of the opposition of
His enemy.
Also, he says that every creature of the good God received the
capacity for action under influence of error. He calls error the greatest
god of evil. Christ is an exception. In Him that capacity for sinning or
the power of transgression was so suppressed by the highest good that
it failed of its effect—which was marvelous and extraordinary, even for
342 From 1216 to 1325

Christ. Wherefore, He is greatly to be praised, as says Ecclesiasticus,

“Who is He, and we will praise Him?”40 and so on. All other creatures
of the good God became blameworthy. In support of this he cites the
word of the Apostle, “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not
willingly,”41 and so on; and again, “We know that every creature
groaneth,”42 and so on.
Also, he says that when God inflicts punishments for sins upon His
creatures, He does evil and does not comport Himself as God but
rather serves His adversary.
Also, he says that when God declares, “I am God and there is no
other,”43 and again, “See that I alone am God,”44 and the like, repeti-
tiously, then He is influenced by His adversary, for the true God sp6aks
but once and, as Job says, does not repeat Himself.45
Also, he says that God, by the power of His own knowledge, does not
have foreknowledge of anything evil, since it does not emanate from
Him, but sometimes He does have foreknowledge of it through His
adversary.
Also, he believes that the true God brought about the Flood, de¬
stroyed Pentapolis, and overthrew Jerusalem, because of the sins of His
creatures; and, to summarize, the true God, provoked by His adversary,
brought upon His people Israel all the afore-mentioned evils which they
suffered in Judea or in the Promised Land because of the sins which
they had committed. So this John says; he also believes that all the
events mentioned took place in a certain other world, belonging to the
true God.
Also, he believes that the souls who are of God are transferred from
body to body and that in the end all will be freed from punishment
and guilt.
Also, this John accepts the whole Bible, but thinks that it was
written in another world, and that there Adam and Eve were formed.
Also, he believes that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other
patriarchs, and Moses, Joshua, and all the prophets, and the Blessed
John the Baptist were pleasing to God and that they were men in an¬
other world.
Also, that Christ was born according to the flesh of the fathers of
old, just named, and that He really assumed flesh from the Blessed
Virgin and really suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, and rose
again on the third day, but he thinks that all these things took place in
51. The Summa of Rainerius 343
another, higher world, not in this one.
Also, that in the aforesaid world, the whole human race incurred
death because of sin to which it yielded, sin which this John calls the
principle and cause of all evil, as we have repeatedly remarked. And
after their bodies were buried in that world, their souls necessarily de¬
scended into hell, that is, into this world, and to this hell Christ came
down to help them.
Also, he believes that in the upper world will come the resurrection
of the dead, namely, that each soul belonging to God will receive its
own body.
Also, that in that same world the true God gave the law of Moses to
the people we have described. There, also, priests offered sacrifices and
burnt offerings for the sins of the people, as their offering is com¬
manded in the Law.
Also, in that same place Christ literally wrought true miracles in
raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, and feeding five thousand
men, not counting the women and children, from five barley loaves and
two fishes.
Why say more? Whatever in the whole Bible is stated to have been
in this world he changes to have actually taken place in that other world.
[23] How John of Lugio Wrote a Book about His Errors.—Indeed,
the oft-mentioned heresiarch John of Lugio fabricated the blasphemies
and errors described above and many others which would take too long
and be too disgusting for me to recount. From them he compiled a
large volume of ten quires, a copy of which I have.461 have read it all
and from it have extracted the errors cited above. It is also to be noted
especially that this John and his associates do not dare to reveal to their
believers the errors described,47 lest their own believers desert them on
account of these novel errors and because of the schism existing among
the Albanensian Cathars, of which they are the cause. The Albanensian
Cathars censure the Concorezzenses and are in turn censured by the
latter.
[24] The Following Concerns the Particular Errors of the Church of
the Cathars of Concorezzo.—These people rightly believe in one
Principle only, but many of them err in respect of the Trinity and unity.
Also, they confess that God created the angels and the four elements
from nothing; but they err in believing that the devil, with God’s per¬
mission, made all visible things, or this world.
344 From 1216 to 1325

Also, they believe that the devil formed the body of the first man
and into it infused an angel who had already sinned slightly.
Also, that all souls exist by propagation from that angel.
Also, they reject the whole of the Old Testament, thinking that the
devil was its author, except for those phrases which were carried over
into the New Testament by Christ and the apostles, such as, “Behold a
virgin shall be with child,”48 and the like.
Also, they all reject Moses, and many of them are doubtful about
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the other patriarchs, and also especially
the prophets. And many of them only recently came to believe cor¬
rectly about the Blessed John the Baptist, whom they all formerly
condemned.
Also, they say that Christ did not take on a human soul, but almost
all believe that He did assume flesh from the Blessed Virgin.
[25] The Errors of Nazarius, Their Bishop.—Nazarius, a former
bishop of theirs and a very old man, said before me and many others
that the Blessed Virgin was an angel and that Christ did not assume
human nature but an angelic one, or a celestial body. And he said he
got this error from the bishop and elder son of the church of Bulgaria
almost sixty years ago.
Moreover, it should be noted that all the Cathars who profess that
Christ assumed a true human body deny that that body was glorified
and is to be glorified. They say that Christ on the day of His ascension
laid it aside in the shining sky and will resume it again on the Day of
Judgment, and after the judgment it will be resolved into pre-existent
matter like a putrid corpse.
Also, they say that the soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary and those
of the apostles and of all the saints are not yet in glory, nor will they be
until the Day of Judgment, but they are in that ether, in the same place
as the body of Jesus Christ.
[26] On the Bagnolensian Cathars,—The next matter for discussion
is the beliefs of the church of Bagnolo.
These people agree with the aforesaid Cathars of Concorezzo in
almost all the beliefs described above, except for this: They say that
souls were created by God before the foundation of the world and that
they sinned even then.
Also, they believe, along with the aforesaid Nazarius, that the Blessed
Virgin was an angel and that Christ did not assume human nature from
51. The Summa of Rainerius 345

her, nor did He undergo any real suffering in death, but that He as¬
sumed a celestial body.
[27] On the Toulousan Cathars, the A Ibigenses, and Those of Car¬
cassonne.—Lastly, it is to be noted that the Cathars of the Toulousan
church, and those of Albi and Carcassonne, maintain the errors of
Belesmanza and the old Albanenses, as do almost all the churches of
Cathars beyond the seas which I have named.
No church of Cathars, in truth, agrees on all points with the church
of Concorezzo. The church of France (Franciae) agrees with that of
Bagnolo. Those of the March of Treviso, indeed, and of Tuscany, and
of the valley of Spoleto agree in more points with the said Bagnolenses
than with the Albanenses, but little by little they are being drawn to
the Albanenses.
Also, all the churches of the Cathars recognize each other, although
they may have differing and contrary opinions, except the Albanenses
and the Concorezzenses, who censure each other, as mentioned above.
If any Cathar, of either sex, refuses to admit the particular errors de¬
scribed, or at least those held in common, then one may indisputably
say of him that he utters lies in hypocrisy, which is a characteristic of
the Cathars—witness thereto is the Apostle, who so clearly prophesied
about them49—unless perhaps that person be someone simple or a
novice among them, for to many such they do not reveal their secrets.
[28] On the Heresy of the Leonists, or the Poor of Lyons.—Enough
has now been said about the heresy of the Cathars. Our next subject is
the heresy of the Leonists, or Poor of Lyons. However, this heresy is
divided into two parts, the first called the Ultramontane Poor, the
second the Poor of Lombardy. The latter are descended from the
former. The first, namely, the Ultramontane Poor, say that in the New
Testament every oath is forbidden as a mortal sin. And they say the
same about secular justice, to wit, that kings, princes, and potentates
are not permitted to punish malefactors.
Also, they affirm that a simple layman can consecrate the body of
the Lord. I believe, also, that as to women they say the same thing, since
they have not denied it before me.
Also, that the Roman Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ.
[29] On the Poor of Lombardy.—The Poor of Lombardy agree with
the first group as regards the oath and secular justice. About the body
of the Lord, indeed, their beliefs are even worse than those of the others:
346 From 1216 to 1325

They say that any man without mortal sin is allowed to consecrate it.
Also, they say that the Roman Church is the church of the wicked,
the beast and the harlot which are described in the Apocalypse; con¬
sequently, they say that it is no sin to eat meat during Lent and on
Fridays, despite the precepts of the Church, provided it be done without
scandal to others.
Also, [they say] that the Church of Christ subsisted in the bishops
and other prelates down to the time of the Blessed Sylvester,50 and in
him it fell away until they themselves restored it. Nevertheless, they
m

assert that there were always some who feared God and were saved.
Also, they say that infants are saved without baptism.51
The foregoing work has been faithfully compiled by the said Brother
Rainerius, in the year of our Lord 1250. Thanks be to God!

52. Waldenses in the Thirteenth Century

We have already presented the narrative of the origin of the Poor of Lyons
told by Stephen of Bourbon (No. 33). Here we translate his remarks on the
sect as he knew it from his experience as an inquisitor between 1232
and 1249.
The translation is from Stephani de Borbone tractatus de diversis materiis
praedicabilibus iv.vii.343, ed. by Albert Lecoy de la Marche, as Anecdotes
historiques, legendes et apologues drees du recueil inedit d*Edenne de Bour¬
bon, dominicain du XIUe siecle (Societe de l’histoire de France, Publications,
CLXXXV [Paris, 1887]), pp. 292-99.

1249-1261
Now these are the errors by which the Waldenses are poisoned and
corrupted; their beliefs are abhorrent not merely in respect of a single
article of faith or of one sacrament but in all, directly and indirectly, as
I have come to know through much questioning and from confessions
under oath, written verbatim from the lips of the Perfect1 as well as of
their believers, and also from witnesses testifying against them. They
believe that every lie is a mortal sin and an oath is the same. However,
I have heard some of them say that under fear of death it is permissible
for those who are not perfected to lie and to take oaths. They them¬
selves do lie and commit perjury, nor do they think it a sin, since they
excuse and disguise their lies by wiles and sophistries.
Also, the fundamental point of their error—nay rather, the negation
52. Waldenses in Thirteenth Century 347
of all faith—is their assertion, which I have found in the confessions of
nearly all the Perfect and others, that the soul of the first man was a
part of the divine substance, the very spirit of God or a partaker of His
essence. When I was preaching in the town of Valence twenty-five years
ago, before I knew much about their activities and before the office of
inquisitor had been entrusted to me, a certain Catholic told me that he
had heard teachers expounding this text, “The Lord God formed man
of the slime of the earth and breathed into his face,”2 as follows: God
made and shaped one human figure of soft clay, as do children, and
placed it in the sun to dry. When it had dried, where the heat of the
sun had made little cracks there were veins for the blood. Finally, by
blowing on its face He infused His spirit into it, and thus was man
made with a living soul; and in the same way, the man said, God made
other souls. Nearly all of them agree that the soul of every good man
is in very truth the Holy Spirit, who is God, and that a good man, so
long as he remains good, has no soul other than the Holy Spirit, or God.
When one sins, the Holy Spirit departs and the devil enters in, just as
we read that he entered into the heart of Judas, whom the Lord de¬
clared to be a devil.3 This they confirm from the Gospel, in which God
says: “It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that
speaketh in you”;4 and again in Matthew, “For that which is conceived
in her is of the Holy Spirit and is begotten.”5 And these wretched
creatures, who have not the Spirit, do not understand that the Holy
Spirit spoke through the saints by inspiration and guidance, as is stated
in John,6 nor do they realize that Christ was not conceived by a male
act, but that conception was effected by the Holy Spirit; nor are they
aware of how numberless and obvious are the abuses, abominations,
and follies which follow from their assumption. For if the soul of man
were the Holy Spirit, it would be omnipotent, all-knowing, eternal, in¬
violable, and immutable, so that it could act neither for better nor for
worse; it could not be damned, nor could it desire or do wicked things.
He who does not recognize that this is the utmost folly is lacking in
sense.
Also, they state—and this, perhaps, follows from their first proposi¬
tion—that there is no purgatorial punishment other than in the present
life. For the dead, neither the good offices of the Church nor anything
done in their behalf has any effect.
Also, they say that all good men are priests and that any good man
348 From 1216 to 1325
has as much power to absolve sins as we believe the pope to possess.
Moreover—to expose the true nature of their belief—they hold that God
alone can absolve from sins, but they also say that all good men can
effect this, since God, who dwells in them, and through whom they are
able to bind and loose all things, works only through them to this end.
They scorn the absolutions and excommunications of the Church, since,
as they say, only God can excommunicate.
Also, one of their leading teachers and missionaries drew for me the
following distinction. There are, he said, some persons who are ordained
neither by God nor by men, for example, wicked laymen; there are
others, such as our wicked priests, ordained by men but not by God;
and there are others, ordained by God but not by men, such as good
laymen who keep God’s commandments, who have the power to bind
and loose, to consecrate and ordain, if they use the words of God
specified for this. But, as he said in reference to the last-named persons,
some make a distinction between sexes and say that only members of
the male sex can be ordained; others make no such distinction, for they
say that a woman, if she is a good woman, can fulfill the priestly office.
(I have seen one heretical woman who was burned, who believed that
she could, and who sought to perform it atop a box prepared like an
altar.)7 He also said that there are other persons ordained by both God
and men if, as priests ordained by men, they also keep God’s command¬
ments, for God will not hearken to sinners.
Also, they say that evil men, who live in sin, cannot bind and loose,
bestow indulgences or remissions on sinners, or ordain, or do anything
such that God approves or that is done to the end that it may please
God, but only do that which is pleasing in the eyes of men. They deride
papal indulgences and absolutions and the keys of the Church, calling
the dedication and consecration of churches and altars a feast of stones.
Also, they say that all ground is equally consecrated and blessed by
God. They hold Christian cemeteries and churches in contempt.
Also, they say that all judges commit a sin in pronouncing the death
penalty, and they regard as murderers and damned souls those who
preach war against the Saracens and the Albigenses or other men,
except for war against the “infernal” Saracens and Albigenses, whom
they call devils.8
Also, they say that it suffices for salvation to confess only to God
and not to man, and that good works are not necessary to salvation. But
52. Waldenses in Thirteenth Century 349

no matter how great and numerous the sins he may have committed,
when any sinner repents and then dies, he ascends at once to heaven.
Also, the spirit of man, in so far as he is a good man, when he dies,
is one with the spirit of God and is God himself; whence many of them,
resting upon their first proposition, will agree, I think, that there is no
spirit in heaven but the spirit of God, who is himself God, and that
there is in heaven no soul except God. And when one asks them if the
souls of Peter and Paul and other saints are in heaven, they avow that
there is no soul in heaven but God, none which is not God. This some
of them believe.
Also, they say that our clerics and priests who possess wealth and
worldly goods are sons of the devil and of damnation, and that one who
gives them tithes or oblations commits a sin, for they say that to do
this is like adding fat to lard.
Also, those who offer candles to the saints for lighting the churches
they find worthy of derision.
Also, they scorn the chants of the Church and the holy offices, af¬
firming that those who sing their invocations to Him seem to deride
God, as though He could not understand unless one sings to Him or
beseeches Him in song.
Also, they say that there is no sanctity except that of a good man or
woman.
Also, they assert that the Roman Church is the harlot of Babylon of
whom one reads in the Apocalypse.9
Also, they say that those who observe saints’ days are a laughing¬
stock and that those who work on these days commit no sin, except
perhaps in giving scandal to men. Also, they say that those who dis¬
regard the rules for fasting and who eat meat on any day whatsoever
commit no sin, except perhaps for the scandal arising therefrom. But in
private it is permissible to eat on any day, so they say, and wherever
there will be no scandal to men.
Also, they deny entirely the necessity of obedience to the Roman
Church.
Also, they assert that God alone is to be adored with every kind of
adoration and that persons who adore the Cross or that which we say
and believe to be the body of Christ, or the other saints of God or their
images, commit sin.
Also, on the basis of their first proposition, many of them hold—as
350 From 1216 to 1325
I have heard in the confessions of a large number of their leading
members—that any good man is the son of God, just as Christ is. And
in the same way, they say of Him that He had no other soul but God,
or the Holy Spirit, who is God; this they also affirm of other good men.
And when they say that they believe in the incarnation, nativity, suf¬
fering, and resurrection of Christ, they are saying that they believe the
true conception of Christ, His nativity, suffering, resurrection, and
ascension to be when a good man is conceived, born, or resurrected by
penance, or ascends to heaven when he suffers martyrdom; this is the
true passion of Christ. Likewise, when they state that they believe in
baptism, penance, and so on for all the other sacraments, they are s

saying that the true sacraments are consummated when, and only when,
a good man, in a state of grace, performs them. Then there is true
baptism, true confirmation, the true Eucharist (since then is the body
of Christ made), then is ordination, then are marriage and extreme
unction, performed in Him. By means of this very spirituality, many of
them negate our faith in rites and sacraments. Those who seem to be
so/newhat less wrong in their thinking do err in saying that the body of
Christ can be made or consecrated by any good man who says the
words prescribed for this ceremony, although he may not have been
ordained by man.
Also, they say that in carnal marriage the wife may leave her husband
without his consent, and the same with the husband, to adopt their
fellowship or the practice of continence.
Also, this is the Trinity which, or in which, they believe: That, as the
Father is He who turns someone to good, the one who is converted is
the Son; He through whom or in whom one is converted is the Holy
Spirit. This is what they mean when they say they believe in the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in Christ, conceived, born, who suf¬
fered, and so on, as comprised in the creed, which they know very well
how to repeat in the vernacular. The reasons for their falling into these
abominations, I think, were arrogance, hatred of the clergy, and decay
of the faith; because they had lost the foundation they fell into the
labyrinth and the pit of evils. However, an educated man, if he is imbued
with the spirit of God, can quickly disprove all this by reason and by
Scripture.
Furthermore, they quarrel among themselves about these errors,
depending upon the degree to which they have been indoctrinated, I
52. Waldenses in Thirteenth Century 351
have heard a daughter arguing with her mother, both of whom were
infected with the same error and were very well versed in its tenets.
Because of the uncompromising character of their error, to which they
tenaciously clung, they were burned together. I have put down these
matters here, thinking it good that the brethren, defenders of the faith,
be not ignorant of them.

53. Tenets of the Italian Cathars

It was probably a Franciscan friar interested in preaching against heresy
who copied into a few folios of his manuscript Bible various materials about
heresy intended for his own use. Later, another owner of the Bible added to
these a prologue, emphasizing the necessity of combating heresy, and gave
to the whole the title Brevis summula contra herrores notatos hereticorum.1
This composite treatise was once regarded as a valuable source for the study of
heresy,2 but it is less highly thought of today, because none of the component
parts seems to have been the original work of the compiler. He copied first a
description of the tenets of absolute dualists, perhaps drawing on a document
Moneta of Cremona had also used or perhaps adapting Moneta’s own
words,3 to which he appended an inferior copy of the De heresi catha-
rorum in Lombardia (see No. 23) without its historical narrative.4 Then
he went on to enumerate the beliefs of the Albanenses (here misnamed
Albigenses) 5 and, after a brief paragraph on the Bagnolenses, to give a
catalogue of the beliefs of the three major Italian groups of Cathars,6 together
with some chapters of refutation of their errors.7 Similarities of phrasing in
the statement of beliefs, the catalogue, and the refutation show that they
were all composed by the same author.8 The compilation as a whole is
difficult to date, but it may well have been put together within a decade
after 1250.6
We translate here the prologue, which, as has been said, was the final
touch, but we pass over the portions enumerated above as (1) and (2) to
translate the statement on the Albanenses and Bagnolenses and the cata¬
logue of heretical beliefs. We also omit the concluding chapters of refutation.
The Brevis summula has been printed by both Douais and Molinier;
Molinier, however, omitted the statement of beliefs of the Albanenses and
the chapters of refutation which conclude the tract. In one case we have
ventured to supply from another closely related source a passage which
Douais found almost illegible and Molinier omitted. The editions are
Celestin Douais, La Somme des autorites a Vusage des predicateurs meri-
dionaux au XIII* siecle (Paris, 1896) from pp. 114-15 and 125-33 of which
passages are translated; and Charles Molinier, “Un Texte de Muratori con-
cernant les sectes cathares: Sa provenance reelle et sa valeur,” Annales du
Midi, XXII (1910), 212-16.
352 From 1216 to 1325
1250-1260 (?)

A BRIEF TREATISE AGAINST THE DISTINCTIVE

ERRORS OF HERETICS

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, amen. In praise of the Blessed
Virgin and of all the saints and of the Holy Roman Church. Here
begins a brief treatise against the distinctive errors of heretics.

[Prologue]
Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit spoke through Solomon in the Canticles,
to the prelates and custodians of the vines of the Lord, that is, the
Church, “Catch us the little foxes that destroy the vines,”10 to catch
and silence the foxes—meaning the heretical depravities which lay waste
the Church—we will, with the inspiration11 and aid of the same Holy
Spirit, first expose the errors and fatuities of heretics, in so far as we
have been able to discover them, for, as Leo12 says, “Evil is not avoided
unless known.” Thereafter in this little work, we add certain texts of
the New Testament for the refutation of the chief points of their heresy
and for giving credence to and extolling the faith of the Holy Catholic
Church, which we call Roman. We buttress it by the opinions of the
saints, so that those who are therein shall steadfastly remain, and those
who have left it through the deceptions of heretics shall be brought
back.13 For this is the Catholic faith and unless every faithful one shall
steadfastly believe in it he cannot be saved. It is what was signified by
the ship of which Paul speaks in the twenty-seventh chapter of Acts,
“Except these stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.”14 Likewise, it is
signified by the ark of Noah, in which were saved those who were
therein, while others perished, and so in faith the faithful shall be saved;
and this the apostle Peter intimates in the second epistle, chapter 3.15
Also, it is signified by Simon’s ship, which Jesus entered, as says Luke,
chapter 5.16 And since James says, “He who causeth a sinner to be
converted from the error of his way shall save his soul from death,”17
it is quite apparent that all heretics are in the death of sin and incline
toward eternal death. Also, St. Augustine, in De fide catholica, says,
“Hold most firmly and doubt not that every heretic or schismatic is to
share with the devil and his angels the flames of eternal fire unless
before the end of his life he shall have been brought into and renewed
in the Catholic Church.”18 Also, in the same work a little later, “Neither
53. Tenets of Italian Cathars 353

baptism nor charity, however profuse, nor death undergone for the
name of Christ can profit any man for salvation who does not hold fast
to the unity of the Catholic Church.”19 Also, in the Extravagantes, De
haereticis, the decretal says, “The dubious in faith is an unbeliever, nor
is any trust to be placed in him who knows not the true faith.”20 Also,
Pope Leo says in the same place, “He who does not, when he can, recall
others from error shows that he himself errs.”21 Accordingly, dearly
beloved, so that you may rejoice in your own and many others’ salva¬
tion, by the example of good works, by devout prayers, by pious
admonitions, and by the testimony of holy authorities, according as the
Holy Spirit shall deem it worthy to endow you, do you deem it worthy
to recall both those of doubtful faith and those actually in error and
inducing others to err, to the praise and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God,
world without end. Amen.

[Beliefs of the Albanenses]

Also the Albanenses,22—These likewise wickedly pervert Holy Writ
to their evil error and thus they sin.
Also, it is the heresy of the Albigenses which says that Lucifer was
the son of the evil god and that he ascended into heaven and found the
wife of the celestial king without her husband, that is, God.23 There he
went so far as to lie with her. As she at first defended herself, Lucifer
said to her that if he should beget a son he would make him god in his
kingdom, and have him worshiped as a god. And so she yielded to him.
They cite that verse of the Apocalypse, “The kingdom of this world is
become our Lord’s,”24 and so on. And they say that thus Christ was
bom and thus He brought His flesh down from heaven and this is their
great secret. They seek also to maintain that He was not true man but
an angel incarnate, that He was not the son of the Blessed Mary and so
did not take on flesh from her, and that He did not eat or drink in the
flesh,25 did not suffer in the flesh, and in His body did not die. They say
that all these and like acts which He performed He did in appearance
only, not in fact. And likewise they say that He did not rise again and
was not dead; so, when they confess that Christ had true flesh and did
such things as these, they are saying that all these things occurred only
in outward appearance. They also say that He did not ascend in human
flesh but in that which He had brought from heaven. They say that He
354 From 1216 to 1325
did not suffer our afflictions, such as hunger, cold, and the like. They
allege also that He is not greater than all others, nor equal to the Father;
and they say He is not God.
Of the Blessed Virgin, they say that she was not a woman, but an
angel sent from heaven.
They assert also that John the Baptist was another evil angel, sent by
the devil to hinder the preaching of Christ by his baptism, and they
contend that the baptism of water is worthless and of no efficacy; they
explain away the fact that it is recorded in Holy Writ that the apostles
baptized in water by saying, “in water, that is, in doctrine.” Thus, they
say, the Spirit is never given in the baptism of water; the Spirit is not
given except by the imposition of hands, and baptism is administered
by the imposition of hands. They also say that no one can be saved
unless he has the imposition of hands from them. The Holy Spirit and
the Spirit Paraclete, they say, are not the same, and they say that the
blessed spirits are those which are given to men, namely, the Perfect
Spirit, the spirit of clemency, the spirit of fear, and many others, all of
which, they assert, are different in essence.
They say also that man can give the Holy Spirit.
They say also that under no circumstances can man be saved by
faith alone.
They say also that the Lord will not condemn for all eternity.
They say also that not everyone can be saved, because of the words,
“I was not sent but to the sheep,”26 and so forth.
They say also that before the coming of Christ there were no good
men. They say that the prophecies and the law of Moses came not
from the good God, yet when it happens to suit their purpose they cite
the prophets. Of them, they say that they spoke to men only out of
their diabolical spirit, and when it was by their own spirit or by that of
the devil, then they spoke wickedness; but when it was by the spirit of
God, they spoke good things, sometimes being compelled thereto.27
Sometimes they revealed what they remembered of the things they saw
in heaven.
Also, they say that not one of the patriarchs of the Old Testament is
saved; that none are to be saved except the fallen angels, and these
they believe to be none other than the sheep of which the Lord said in
the Gospel, “I was not sent but to the sheep,”28 and so forth.
Also, that... ,29
They say that the good God is not the creator of all things, in regard
53. Tenets of Italian Cathars 355
either to substance or to its fashioning; that things mutable are not
from God; that not He but the devil created those bodies. Whence, they
say, the devil has power over created things. They say that the good
God did not and does not make anything of a perishable nature. Thus,
they say, bodies must perish; and, moreover, they say that all things are
not subject to one God.
They say also that the Lord does not infuse or create new souls, that
souls do not go directly to rest or punishment after death, and that there
will be30 equal reward in the heavenly home. For this reason they
declare that they will have as much glory as Christ or anyone else.
They say that there will be no resurrection of bodies and that Christ
did not descend into hell.
They say also that [the New Testament was] given and prepared [by
the good God]31 and that the Old Testament is not from the good God
but from the evil one, who included some excellent precepts the better
to deceive. He caused sacrifice of animals and offerings of blood to
himself, so that he might be thought to be God. They assert that Moses
was wicked and also that it was the evil god who led the people out of
Egypt and killed the Egyptians.
They say that there is no salvation through the Law.
They say also that God the Father did not speak to the fathers
of old.
They say that the good God did not prescribe circumcision.
They say that Adam was not formed by God but that whatsoever
things are recorded in Genesis were performed by Lucifer.
They say that the good God does not give life to and kill bodies; He
only gives life, He does not kill. The evil one, however, kills. One is
wicked who judges and grants no grace at all; hence they wish to say
that the torment of punishment is not the work of God. And so, they
also say, no one should impose a penalty for evil deeds, that the death
penalty must not be used as a punishment, and that such an action is
nothing other than the work of the devil and is a sin.
They say that sin is a substance in itself, and a spirit which suggests
wicked work to men. Then this work is called sin, since it is committed
by that spirit which is so named. They say that man cannot do penance
after sin, because they believe that no sin can be committed other than
that which has been committed in heaven. Hence, they say that souls
will not be condemned, for they do not believe in hell, because one does
not find in Genesis that the god who, in their view, created this world,
356 From 1216 to 1325

namely Lucifer, made one during the six days. They say that there is
no purgatorial fire and no purgatory.
Now, they say that the world always existed because they believe that
Lucifer and his father always existed—this is according to one theory—
wherefore they say that there were always souls and bodies here in the
realm of their lord. Others among them, moreover, say that there is no
hell or paradise but only the lower realm, comprising “heaven and
earth,” as described in Genesis, and the higher realm, which is that of
the good God. Therefore, in declaring that no soul will be saved other
than the spirits who fell, who they think will all be saved, they assert
that the other souls created by the devil, the evil god, will be condemned,
not for eternity but temporally, for a period as long as the world endures.
This condemnation, they think, is here in the darkness of this world, that
is, to sustain hunger, cold, weariness, and the like. In this, they do not
think that they are repudiating the statements made above to the effect
that souls will not be condemned and that they always existed here in
the realm of their lord, which cannot persist, for it is their explanation
that souls will not be condemned, that is, by a second condemnation,
because they are already damned. Thus they deny that future day when,
it is said, souls will be condemned, because it has already passed.
They say that original sin was not incurred by Adam, and that it is
naught. Some sinners, they say, are born in personal sin.
They say also that both good persons and wicked ones are not part
of the Church of God; that the Church of God cannot institute customs
beyond those established by the apostles; that it should possess nothing
except property in common; that it ought not to have the extensive
possessions it holds; and that it should not perform burial services in
the way it does. They declare that sinful priests cannot perform their
functions or confer any benefit; also, that the evil life of a prelate harms
both the communicant and the sacrament.
They say that no sinful man can be a priest or a deacon in the
Church of God; and they insist that the Church cannot excommunicate.
They say that there is no sacrament in the Eucharist.
They say that a church edifice is not a good thing nor should prayers
be said therein; that the Church ought not to prosecute evildoers; and
that priests cannot and should not govern the people.
They say that anointing with oil is useless; that there should be no
prayer or chants other than the Lord’s Prayer; that no person ought to
53. Tenets of Italian Cathars 357
be worshiped; that tithes** should be given only to good men; that no
man should be excommunicated; that it is not permissible to put anyone
to death; that marriage is evil because of the procreation of children;
that a man need not restore ill-gotten gains;38 that usury is not for¬
bidden; and that one ought not to take an oath.
They say also that it is a sin to eat meat; that sin does not arise from
free will;84 that “neighbor” is not to be interpreted as meaning every
man;85 that according to the Old Testament an enemy is not to be loved;
that no sinful man can be a bishop; that heads ought not to be tonsured;
that “the inward man” does not mean the soul;38 that justice should be
deferred for the purpose of converting men to believers. In opposition
to the heretics, who say there is no right of justice, believers, indeed,
say that justice can be served by the death penalty.37
They say also that the good God does not become wrathful or
disturbed.
They state that all those things of which one reads in the New
Testament were good. Those things which were recorded in the Old
Testament, such as references to Moses, David, and others, and to the
i

lineage of Christ—that He was descended from David—and other

things as well, occurred in another place. They cite the words of Ec-
clesiasticus, “All things are double, one against another,”38 good and
evil. Accordingly, they believe in a good Father and an evil one, a good
Son and an evil one, a good Holy Spirit and an evil one, and so on for
other things.
The heretics who are called the sect of Bagnolo believe and preach
all the above with this exception:33 They say that the good God creates
new spirits and souls and introduces them into new bodies, and they
believe that some of these new spirits are to be saved. Of those that fell,
they believe that some are damned. And so they say that all will be
present at the judgment when the world is judged. Then the newly
created good spirits will take the place of the evil ones who fell; and so,
they say, some of the new spirits and some of the old are to be saved.
The items, summarily stated, which we are about to set down con¬
tain almost all the errors of three sects, which are the Albanenses, the
sect of Bagnolo, and the sect of Concorezzo. On some of these they
disagree and on some they are all in accord. We will mark them all
briefly with A, B, or C. By A, we will indicate the sect of the Albanenses;
by B, that of Bagnolo; by C, that of Concorezzo. Where these three
358 From 1216 to 1325

letters appear, the three sects are in agreement on that point; where two
letters, two only agree; where there is only one letter, only one sect
holds this tenet.

[A Catalogue of Heretical Tenets]

Here are summarily noted the errors of three sects of heretics: By A,
the Albanenses; by B, those of Bagnolo; by C, those of Concorezzo.40

That [there are] two principles, one wholly good, the other wholly
evil (A, B).
That the good God did not create these corporeal bodies (A, B).
That the good God is not the creator of all things (A, B, C).
That all things are not subject to one God only (A, B).
That Christ is not greater than all others (A, B, C).
That [God] will not condemn for all eternity (A, B).
That God neither infuses nor creates new souls (A).
That men do not go directly to hell or to rest (A, B, C).
That Christ did not suffer our afflictions (A, B, C).
That [God] does not make nor has He made anything of a perishable
nature (A, B, C).
That Christ brought flesh from heaven (A, B).
That Christ is not God (A, B, C).
That Christ is not the son of the Blessed Mary (A, B).
That Christ did not take on flesh from the Blessed Mary (A, B).
That the Blessed Mary was not a woman (A, B).
That Christ was not true man (A, B).
That He did not eat in the bodily sense (A, B).
That He did not suffer in the flesh (A, B).
That He did not die (A, B).
That He did not ascend in the flesh (C).
That He did not truly rise again, because He was not dead (A, B).
That He did not rise again in the flesh (C).
That He did not descend into hell (A, B, C).
That the Holy Spirit is not given in the baptism of water (A, B, C).
That John the Baptist was evil (A, B, and some of C).
That he was not a man in the corporeal sense (A, B, and some of C).
That there is no resurrection of bodies (A, B, C).
That children cannot be saved (A, B, C).
That the law of Moses is not good nor are the prophecies (A, B, C).
53. Tenets of Italian Cathars 359
That the patriarchs of the Old Testament are not saved (A, B, C).
That the Old Testament is not from the good God (A, B, C).
That Moses was evil (A, B, C).
That there was no salvation through the law of Moses nor is there any
(A, B, C).
That the good God did not lead the people out of Egypt (A, B, C).
That God the Father did not speak to the patriarchs of old (A, B, C).
That the good God did not prescribe circumcision (A, B, C).
That Adam was not from God (A, B, C).
That before the advent of Christ there were no good men (A, B, C).
That Christ is not equal to the Father (A, B).
That those things which are visible are not from God. Those of Con-
corezzo, however, say that they were created by God in that He made
the four elements, and out of these Lucifer shaped all creatures
whatsoever of their kind, just as they now are. But the others say
that neither in substance, shape, or form did God make anything
which is visible to us. If sometimes they admit that He made visible
things they are speaking of those things which are visible to angels.
That according to the Old Testament41 an enemy is not to be loved
(A, B, C).
That the angels who fell are the sheep spoken of in the Gospel (A and
part of those of B4*).
That the baptism of water is nothing and of no efficacy (A, B, C).
That the Holy Spirit is not given without the imposition of hands
(A, B, C).
That there are not both good and wicked persons in the Church of God
(A, B, C).
That priests and deacons, if sinful, ought not to be in the Church of God
(A, B, C).
That the evil life of a prelate harms both the communicant and the sac¬
rament (A, B, C).
That priests ought not to govern the people (A, B, C).
That evil priests cannot perform their function or confer any good thing
(A, B, C).
That the Church of God ought not and cannot own anything except as
property in common (A, B, C).
That there should not be subdeacons or acolytes in the Church (A, B, C).
That the Church cannot institute customs (A, B, C).
That no sinful person can be a bishop (A, B, C).
360 From 1216 to 1325

That a church edifice is not a good thing nor should one pray there
(A, B, C).
That [the Church] ought not to prosecute evildoers (A, B, C).
That die Church cannot excommunicate (A, B, C).
That the Church ought not to perform burial services in the way it does
(A, B, C).
That anointing with oil is worthless (A, B, C).
That the sacrament of the altar is worthless (A, B, C).
That alms should be given only to the good (A, B, C).
That there should be no prayers or chants except the Lord’s Prayer
(A, B, C).
That sin does not arise from free will (A, B, C).
That there is no original sin (A, B, C).
That a man cannot do penance after sin (A, B, C).43
That no sin can be committed except that which was committed in
heaven (A, B).
That the work of the devil is nothing other44 than sin (A, B, C). All
differ somewhat in explaining this point.
That there is no purgatorial fire (A, B).
That there is no hell (A, B).
That the good God gives life and does not kill (A, B, C).
That the evil god gives life to and kills bodies45 (A, B, C).
That the God who grants grace does not impose punishment through
either good or wicked persons (A, B, C).
That the god who punishes does not grant grace (A, B, C).
That the torment of punishment is not the work of the good God
(A, B, C).
That souls are not damned (A, B, C).
That the world always has existed and always will exist (A, B).
That under no circumstances can a man be saved by faith alone
(A, B, C).
That a man cannot be saved [through the faith of his] father and mother
(A, B, C).
That one need not go to confession (A, B, C).
That judgment has already been rendered (A, B,46 C).
That matrimony is evil (A, B, C).
That not everyone can be saved (A, B).
That it is a sin to eat meat (Ar B, C).
53. Tenets of Italian Cathars 361
That “neighbor” does not mean every man (A, B, C).
That no one should be excommunicate (A, B, C).
That usury is not forbidden (A, B, C).
That a man need not restore ill-gotten gains (A, B, C).
That one ought not to take an oath (A, B, C).
That it is not permissible for anyone to kill (A, B, C).
That punishments ought not to be inflicted (A, B, C).
That justice ought not to be rendered by man (A, B, C).
That justice should be deferred for the purpose of conversion (A, B, C).
That the devil has power over created things (A, B, C).
That rewards are equal in the heavenly home (A, B, C).
That man can give the Holy Spirit (A, B, C).
That the Holy Spirit and the Spirit Paraclete are not the same (A, B, C).
That the inner man is not the soul (A, B, C).
That heads ought not to be tonsured (A, B, C).

54. An Inquisitor s Notebook,

by Anselm of Alessandria
A narrative of the origin of the Cathars, written by Anselm of Alessandria,
a Dominican inquisitor in Italy, has already been presented (No. 24). The
remainder of Anselm’s treatise comprises materials jotted down in 1266 and
following years to supplement the information in the summa of Rainerius
Sacconi, who had been Anselm’s superior in the Inquisition in 1256 and
whose treatise was in his possession.1 Of these items, all but four are trans¬
lated here.2 Much of what Anselm recorded was based on his personal
experience—or consisted of copies of materials he found useful in his
office—and is valuable for its illuminating detail.
The translation is from Antoine Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare en
Italie, II: Le ‘Tractatus de hereticis’ d’Anselme d’Alexandrie, O.P.; III: Cata¬
logue de la hierarchie cathare d’ltalie,” Archivum fratrum praedicatorum,
XX (1950), 310-24, by permission of the Istituto storico domenicano di
S. Sabina.

1266-1276
[a treatise on heretics]

... [2] A Note on the Four Bishops of the Cathars in Lombardy.—

It should be noted that the Cathars have four bishops in Lombardy.
Those of Concorezzo have Master [Hubert] Mandennus,8 but the first
of their particular bishops was John Judeus and after him Garattus, on
362 From 1216 to 1325

whose account they are called Garatenses. After him they had Nazarius
for about forty years; after him, Gerard de Cambiate4 and then Man-
dennus, whom they now have as bishop. The Albanenses first had
Philip, then Belesmanza for perhaps forty years, then John of Luzano,5

Those of Bagnolo first had Caloiannes, after whom they are called the
Caloianni; then Orto of Bagnolo, on whose account they are called
Bagnolenses; later Andrew;7 and then Hamundus of Casalolto,8 whom
they now have as bishop. Those who are said to be from France have
as bishop, I believe, Viventius of Verona.9
[3] How Those of Concorezzo Have Been Divided.—Also, it is to be
noted that those of Concorezzo have divided into “ancients” and
“moderns.” For some of them hold to the old beliefs with Nazarius,
their old bishop; some of them, on the other hand, accept new beliefs
with Desiderius, a former elder son of this sect.10 So their bishop and
elder son disagree,11 for Nazarius and his adherents did not believe that
Christ truly ate material food, that He actually died, or truly rose again.
Also, they did not believe that Christ performed any real miracle af¬
fecting the bodies of men. Desiderius and his followers, on the contrary,
believed that He truly performed real miracles. Also, all the Cathars
agree on the tenet that Christ did not descend into hell. Also, the belief
of Nazarius and his followers is that one and the same spirit was in John
the Baptist«. s had been in Elijah and that this was an evil spirit, a devil.
Also, Nazarius possesses a certain document which he calls The Secret.™
Desiderius and his followers do not accept this Secret, but believe it to
be evil. Also, Nazarius says that Christ did not have a soul but godhead
rather than a soul. However, Desiderius and the very few who agree
with him on this point believe that he had a soul. Also, Nazarius believes
that Christ was not God, one with the Father, while Desiderius believes
that Christ is truly God and the same in essence as the Father. Also,
Nazarius says that Christ brought His body down from heaven, entered
into the Virgin through her ear and emerged from her ear and in His
ascension bore that same body. Desiderius, however, says He truly had
a body of the stuff of Adam and that the Blessed Virgin truly had a
body of the stuff of Adam and was truly a woman. He says that in that
body Christ really died and truly rose again, but when He ascended
into heaven He put it into a terrestrial paradise where the Blessed
Virgin is, who, according to him, never died. There, he believes, lives
54, Anselm's Notebook 363
John the Evangelist, and there are all the souls of the righteous dead.
This he confirms by the verse, “Wheresoever the body shall be,”13 and
so on. He declares that they will remain there even to the Day of Judg¬
ment. In judgment, Christ will again put on that body and in it shall
judge all the good and the evil. Then He will put it off and it will return
to primordial matter, just as will the bodies of dumb animals. Also, all
the Concorezzenses believe that the prophets spoke sometimes by their
own inspiration, sometimes when inspired by the Holy Spirit, and some¬
times when inspired by an evil spirit. All say that these sixteen prophets
were good men but that whensoever they spoke by the evil spirit the devil
always provided them with that which they should say. But anent the
assertion that they sometimes spoke by divine inspiration, they say that
God had a certain indwelling in the prophets so that sometimes they
might speak to God’s purpose, as in that verse, “Behold a virgin,”14
and others which are found in the New Testament. However, the prince
of the world, the devil, did not know of this. Also, take note that all the
Concorezzenses despise David and reject his words, except those which
are repeated in the New Testament. Also, all the Concorezzenses believe
that these sixteen prophets and all the other persons of the Old Testa¬
ment who were saved arose again in the death of Christ and are they of
whom it is said, “Many bodies of the saints arose.”15 They received the
imposition of hands from Christ, they say. Also, note that Nazarius
believes that from Adam’s crown the devil made the sun, that is, from
one part of it, and from another he made the moon; from the crown of
Eve he made the moon and the stars and the five stars which are not in
the firmament. From another part [of Eve’s crown] he believes that the
devil made the throne where Satan sits in the starry heaven and from
which he rules over all the world below, with the exception of good
souls. And he believes that all the other stars were made from stones.
Desiderius accepts none of these things. Nazarius also says that the sun
and the moon are animate beings, that they fornicate every month, and
he asserts that dew and honey come from the lewdness of the sun and
the moon; hence his refusal to eat honey.16 Also, note that Nazarius
and his followers, together with those of Bagnolo and the Albanenses,
interpret all the texts about matrimony in a spiritual sense17 and believe
that these were precepts laid down for those who are members of the
Church. But Desiderius and his followers interpret them as referring to
carnal matrimony and as precepts applying to those who are members
364 From 1216 to 1325

of the Church by faith but not by profession; that is, these precepts are
for their believers. Also, note that a certain Albanensian teacher named
Lanfranc de Vaure,18 says (and this is a tenet of the Albanenses) that
not all the sheep, or the souls who came down or fell from heaven, are
confined in bodies but that some are cleansed in the fiery ether, bodiless.
They will bear a greater punishment than those who are embodied but
will be the sooner saved; they are the ones of whom it is said in the
Gospel, “And other sheep I have that are not of [this fold],”19 and so on.
Also, one may demand of all Concorezzenses whether God made
the body of Adam and whether He formed Eve from a rib, or if He
himself shaped your hand or your body in reality and by direct act,
without an intermediary. Should the reply be in the affirmative, one
asks whether God the Father did this by His own fiat or whether the
devil ever received from God any power or ministry by which he could
do this, and so on. The Cathar will not be able to hide his error. Also,
note that a Cathar of Concorezzo, when he wishes to conceal his error,
says that God made Eve from a rib and shaped and formed your hand,
but he interprets this as “in potentiality”; he means that in reality it is
done by the devil. However, by “in potentiality” he means either that
the power the devil possessed he had as a natural consequence of his
primary creation by God, or that, on the occasion when the devil, in
their view, said to God, “Have patience with me,”20 and so on, God
gave the devil the power to form all things.
[4] On the Belief of the Bagnolenses.-—The belief of the Bagnolenses
is threefold, for some of them agree with those of Concorezzo, others
uphold the beliefs of the Albanenses, and some follow a middle course.
The last-mentioned believe in one Principle. They talk about “creation”
and “formation” as do the Concorezzenses, but of the angels who sinned
in heaven they say that some sinned by voluntarily yielding to the
serpent. These shall never return or be saved and there are no demons
but these. Some angels they hold to have been forcibly abducted by the
serpent and they alone among those who sinned will be saved. The
spirits of Adam and Eve were among the number of those who were
forcibly abducted. They say that from the spirits of Adam and Eve
other spirits are derived to repair and restore the loss of those evil
spirits who sinned voluntarily and that they, that is, the spirits of Adam
and Eve, existed in bodies made by the devil. This propagation of
spirit from spirit is as natural as that of flesh from flesh and plant from
54. Anselm's Notebook 365

plant, but is done by the devil’s contriving. Also, these Bagnolenses,

just like the Concorezzenses, believe that all [future] punishments are
equal, so too are the rewards of the good. They do not believe that
Christ was true man or that he had a real body, but believe that He
brought one from heaven. Nor do they believe that He actually suffered
or really died or endured any tribulation, or rose again, for they say
that these things only seemed to happen. Also, they believe that Christ
is inferior to the Father and that it is the devil who produces rain, snow,
thunder, storms, and the violence of the wind. This is a traditional and
general opinion of all Cathars. Also, no Cathar fasts on the vigils of
any saint, of the apostles, or of the Blessed Virgin. Rather, he says that
the harlot, the Roman Church, established vigils, doing so for profit.
They observe neither the feast day of any saint nor the Lord’s day, nor
do they respect days of rest, except to avoid scandal.
[5] On the Imposition of Hands among the Cathars.—In regard to
the imposition of hands among all the Cathars—that which they call
baptism, or the consolamentum—one should note that it is always per¬
formed by several persons, with the exception that in extreme urgency
it may be accomplished adequately by one alone, even a single Cathar
woman. The Concorezzenses say that nothing is accomplished in the
imposition of the hand unless one touches the recipient on the head, the
shoulder, or elsewhere. Whence, they also believe that even if a Cathar
should thrust his arm and hand through an aperture, seeking to bestow
the consolamentum on some sick person lying on a bed from which he
cannot rise, even though the Cathar should place his hand as close to
the invalid as the nose is to the mouth, it is of no avail unless he actually
touches him. But the Albanenses think they perform the consolamentum
satisfactorily without contact if touch is impossible in the circumstances,
even though they may be as far away from the recipient as the voice
will carry. Thus they confer the consolamentum adequately even when
separated by the walls of a house or a city, or by a river. Therefore
great care is necessary when we detain any suspects, lest Cathars come
near those who are ill, or even come close to the buildings in which they
are being held.
Note this.21 First, he on whom the hand is to be imposed makes three
genuflections before the prelate, saying: “Bless, bless, bless [us]. Good
Christians, pray that God will lead me to a good end and keep me from
an evil death. I beg you through God’s mercy, do unto me that good
366 From 1216 to 1325
which the Lord has done to you.” The prelate replies, “May the Lord
bless you.” Three times he says this; then he adds, “We will gladly do
unto you that good which the Lord has done to us in so far as the Lord
shall give us grace.” Then he explains to him that which he must ob¬
serve. If the communicant says that he is ready in all things, the prelate
holds out to him a book, the New Testament or the Gospels, which he
accepts and holds to his breast, but closed. Then the prelate says, “You
have now received the Testament in which is recorded the divine law.
Never, for all time, may it leave your heart.” The answer is, “Pray God
to give me the grace to observe it, for I desire to observe it always.”
Then he hands the Testament back to the prelate and makes three genu¬
flections, saying, “Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Before Holy Church and good Christians I confess to you all the sins
committed by me since my birth. Do you pray the Lord to pardon me.
May you, too, do so, in so far as you have the power from the Lord
and from Holy Church.” Then he rises and the prelate says, “May He
who has power in heaven and on earth absolve you of all your sins, as
do we in so far as we have the power from God and from Holy Church.”
Then the prelate places the Testament on the initiate’s head and places
a hand on his shoulder, as do all the professed Cathars. The prelate
then says, “Lord God, grant indulgence to Thy servant for all his sins
and receive him into Thy righteousness.” The prelate repeats the Lord’s
Prayer aloud seven times. The others do the same, he likewise on whom
the hand was laid. After this, the prelate says three times, “Let us
adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The others respond,
U
“He is worthy and just.” The prelate says the Lord’s Prayer; the others
do likewise, as before. Then the prelate says, “Let us adore the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and the others respond, “He is worthy
and just.” The prelate then recites the Gospel, “In the beginning was
the Word,”22 or the Gospel of Matthew, “Take up my yoke.”23 When
the Gospel is finished, the prelate says, “May the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be always with you all.” They respond, “Amen.” The
prelate says, “Bless, have mercy upon us.” They reply, “May the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit grant indulgence for all our sins.” All the
others say to the prelate, “Bless, have mercy upon us,” as before. Then
he takes the Testament away from the head of the initiate, who is now
numbered among the Cathars. They say to him, “From now on you are
one of us and you live in the world in precisely the situation of a sheep
54. Anselm's Notebook 367

among wolves.” Forthwith, they perform the Double.24

[6] On the Ordering of Penance among the Cathars.—Four variations
are to be noted among all the Cathars in the assignment of penances.
Now, for an openly committed mortal sin, their prelate imposes three
successive days of “withdrawal” (ad trapassandum), as they call it,
that is, he who has sinned eats or drinks nothing at all for these three
days; the prelate thereafter imposes on him three forty-day fasts on
bread and water. Note that all Cathars observe three forty-day fasts
[each year], but he upon whom the aforesaid penance for mortal sin is
imposed must arrange that his fasts do not coincide with the others
which they universally observe. He loses forever all his priority (prior-
atum) among them nor may he ever perform the imposition of the hand
except in an emergency.25 The second variation: If he mortally sins in
secret, he may be reconsoled and at that point be given twenty-seven
days of withdrawal, that is, days on which he does not eat or drink, but
they do not run consecutively. He does not lose his priority but does
forfeit his office (prelacionem). He may never perform the imposition
of the hand except in an emergency. The third variation is that if anyone
yearns and overwhelmingly desires to do something which is a mortal
sin in their eyes, but does not do so, seven days of withdrawal, but not
consecutive, are imposed on him. It is left to his discretion whether he
will be reconsoled or not; however, he loses his office, but not his
priority. The fourth variation pertains to daily sins, which they confess,
one speaking for all, just as is recounted in the summa of Brother
Rainerius. Three days on bread and water are enjoined on them. They
call these “the days of the Service.”
[7] On Fasts by the Cathars.—The common practice of fasting
among them is that each Cathar, whatever his sect, fasts three days a
week, that is, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. They tell people
that they fast on bread and water but that is not true, because they
abstain only from wine, oil, fish, and shellfish, yet eat all other things
which they are wont to eat on other days. Also, all Cathars in general
observe three forty-day fasts.26 One begins when we begin Lent and
lasts until Easter. The second, they begin on the first Monday after
Pentecost, and it lasts to the feast of St. Peter.27 The third they begin on
the first Monday after the feast of St. Martin;28 it lasts until Christmas.
In the first fast, they observe two weeks—the first and the last—which
they call strict (tfratfay)—the reason for calling these strict is that they
368 From 1216 to 1325
do not venture to drink wine or eat vegetables or oil; it should also be
noted that in these three fasts they do not eat fish or shellfish except in
serious illness. In the other two fasts they observe only one strict week
in each period, which is the first one.
[8a] On the Times for Meals [and for Prayer].29—When the cook has
prepared the food, he goes to the elder30 and says, “Tell me if it is
acceptable unto God and to you.” The elder answers, “May God inform
you if it is acceptable to Him.” Making a deep genuflection,31 the cook
says, “Bless [us].” The elder says, “May the Lord bless you.” The cook
does the same a second time, saying the same words; the elder replies,
“May the Lord bless you.” A third time the cook says with a genuflec¬
tion, “Bless, have mercy upon us,” if he is a professed heretic but if he
is only a believer he says, “Bless us. Good Christians, pray the Lord
that He may lead me to a good end and deliver me from an evil death.”
He continues, “The meal is ready. You may go to the table when it is
acceptable to God and yourself.” The elder answers, “May God reward
you well.” The elder thereupon calls the other Cathars, saying, “Let us
make another [melioramentum].”32 Forthwith, he begins to pray in these
words, “Bless, have mercy upon us.” All the others respond, “May the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit indulge us and have mercy on all
our sins.” Then he says three times, “Let us adore the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.” The first time he says it aloud, the second time
silently, the third time aloud. All the Cathars reply, “He is worthy and
just.” Then all say the Lord’s Prayer thirteen times and, on completing
a fourteenth Lord’s Prayer, the elder says, in just the way that he said
before, “Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” All the
others respond, “He is worthy and just.” Next, all say the Lord’s Prayer
once and, this being completed, the elder says the Lord’s Prayer three
more times [and afterward], “Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit.” The others respond as before. The elder says, “The grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ be always with us all.” All respond, “Amen.”
Thereupon, the elder says, “Bless, have mercy upon us,” and they
reply, ‘May the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” as before. In this
manner they pray fifteen times between daybreak and nightfall.
[8b] How They Comport Themselves at Meals.—When all are now
seated at the table, on which are placed at least bread and wine—or
water, according to the season—all rise. The elder takes a loaf and
cutting it but not sharing it out says, “Bless, have mercy upon us.” All
54. Anselm*s Notebook 369

respond as before, and as before all say the Lord’s Prayer. This done,
the elder says, “Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
They answer as before. He says, “May the grace of our Lord,” as
before, and they reply, “Amen.” Then the elder says, “Bless, have
mercy [upon us]” as before. Then he gives some of this bread to all
persons, believers and others. If there is more bread than is needed, it
does not matter at all if it be fed to pigs.
[9] How They Comport Themselves on Going to Someone*s House.—
When any Cathar or a believer of any sect enters a strange house of any
Cathars, especially if he does not know who are the Cathars among
those he encounters there, he says, “Bessea trona! Can we do some¬
thing for our betterment?”33 Or he may say, “Is there a crooked stick
here?”84 Then, if there is anyone there who is not of their belief and of
whom they are suspicious, the elder answers, “Be seated.” By this the
newcomer understands that there is someone there whom they fear. If,
however, there is no one there to be feared, the elder answers, “Do as
you wish.” The newcomer responds, “Tell me if it is acceptable to God
and to you.” The elder replies, “May God inform us if it is acceptable
to Him.” Then the newcomer bows and makes a deep reverence. He
says, “Bless [us].” A second time he bows and says, “Bless, have mercy
upon us,” if he is a professed Cathar, but if he is only a believer, he
says: “Bless, have mercy upon us. Good Christians, pray to God that
He may bring me to a good end and deliver me from an evil death.” If
the man is a perfected heretic, the other-responds, “May God bless us
and keep us in His service,” but to a believer he says, “May the Lord
bring you to a good end and preserve you35 from an evil death.” Then
he rises and gives him the caron, that is, a sort of embrace, putting his
head once on the left and once on the right. This they call the caron.™
[10] On the Differences between the Lombard and the Ultramontane
Waldenses. A difference between the ultramontane Waldenses and the
Lombards is this: The Ultramontane says that any man, whether good
or bad, even though he is not a priest, can say Mass and perform the
other sacraments. The Lombard says that he cannot unless he is in a
state of grace. Also, the Lombard is in error about the sacrament, nor
does he perform baptism properly. Also, the Lombard works. Also,
they all, Lombards as well as Ultramontanes, scorn the regulations of
the Church. Whence they believe marriage between relatives to be
legitimate, since they find it banned only in the regulations of the
370 From 1216 to 1325
Church... .37 The Ultramontanes do not genuflect to the Cross or to the
altar, adducing this verse, “The idols of the Gentiles [are] silver and
gold,”38 and so on. The Lombards act the same way. Also, they believe
that every good man is a priest and is the Church. Not so the Lombards,
who say that unless two are gathered together, the Church is not there.
Also, the Ultramontanes condemn the Lombards and are condemned in
return. Also, the Ultramontane neither works for himself nor for wages
from others, nor does he practice a trade or profession. He is a sandal-
wearer and adopts a “tonsured” style of footgear,39 or shoes cut away
at the top. He does not store up money but his companion does so for
him; nor does he keep food from one day for the next. He carries only
one cloak. Women follow the same practice except that they do not
wear the sandal-like footgear. But the Lombards also include sandal-
wearers. Also, the Ultramontanes say that the pope can no more indulge
one [for sin] than another man; also that the Roman Church is not the
Church of God but a harlot. The Lombard believes the same. Also, [the
Ultramontane says] that the pope does not fill the office of Peter on
earth. The Lombard says the same. The first-named accept the baptism
and anointing done by the Roman Church; however, they do not accept
the laws of the Church nor do they keep the fasts established by the
Roman Church nor do they regard it as a sin to break them. The
Lombard believes the same. Also, their [the Ultramontanes’] women
preach. Also, they put no belief in the indulgences which the Roman
Church grants. Also, they make the sign of the Cross properly upon
themselves and upon all the things they eat; the Lombard does not, but
only passes his hand over them. The former give credence to the doc¬
tors of the Church in so far as the words favor their interests. They say
that St. Sylvester was corrupted when he accepted worldly wealth.40
Also, William the Albigensian41 is their bishop. The question of labor
was the cause of the division among them, also the Lombards’ assertion
that evil priests cannot perform the Mass. Also, John the Good, of
Ronco,42 was the leader of the Lombards at the time they separated
themselves from the Ultramontanes and the Ultramontanes excom¬
municated the Lombards. The end.
I, Brother A., inscribed this.43 ! learned it from two women who for
a long time adhered to the Waldenses and were of the ultramontane
party. After they had been converted they did their penance in the
prison at Alba... .44
54. Anselm*s Notebook 371
[12] Learned from Another Person [about the Lombards]. The
things that follow I have learned from one Louis of the sect of the
Lombards, who was apprehended at Genoa and converted. He said that
Andrew of Gruara45 is a bishop of the Lombards, who do not number
more than one hundred of both sexes. According to him, they believe
that no evil priest can celebrate the Mass, yet they think that such a one
can indeed baptize and give good advice. Now, what we call imposing
penance they refer to as giving good advice. Also, he said that he did
not believe, as do those of Lyons, that a sinful priest can give extreme
unction. Also, the Lombards confirm their priests and bishop by the
imposition of hands. Also, they accept none of the orders of the Church
but create orders among themselves. Also, the sandal-wearers among
them, whom they call priests, carry only one cloak and either go about
barefooted or wear shoes or sandals cut away at the top. They do not
possess money or handle it, but some other person does this for them.
However, the others, who are not priests, do handle and possess it. They
do not buy vineyards or houses. It is to be noted that for the most part
they live two or three or more together; but if need be, one may live
alone. Also, their sandal-wearer does not work for pay but is cared for
by others. Women are not ordained, but they preach; however, they
cannot impose penance. Also, they say that no one but God can have
mercy on sins and that men or priest only gives advice. They make no
ordinance or laws. Like the others [the Ultramontanes], they do not
believe in purgatory, the oath, or the right of justice. He does not know
what their belief is about the doctors of the Church. They believe that
only a priest ordained by them can celebrate the Mass; a woman can¬
not. Just like the others, they see no worth at all in pilgrimages. Also,
they believe that the voyage across the sea48 is evil. They believe not at
all in the indulgences of the Church nor its laws, just as is true of the
others. They believe that one who owns worldly goods can be saved.
[13] The Secret of Concorezzo.—“I, John, your brother and partner
in tribulation,” and so on. I have another copy of this Secret, so this
much suffices here: “This is the Secret of the heretics of Concorezzo,
full of errors.”47 And also of bad Latin. These men brought heresy to
Lombardy from Naples: Mark, John Judeus, Joseph, and Aldricus—in
about the year 1174... .48
[15a] On the Similarities between the Poor of Lyons and the Lom¬
bards,49—The Poor of Lyons agree on this point in opposition to the
372 From 1216 to 1325
Church, that Pope Sylvester and the martyr Lawrence are not saints.
Also, that the Roman Church pursuing the course it does is not the
Church of Christ but a wicked church. Also, that there is no purgatory.
Also, that man gains nothing by visiting the sepulchers of the saints, by
adoring the Cross, by building churches, or by prayer, masses per¬
formed, or alms given for the dead. Also, that there is no salvation for
those who take an oath in any way. Also, that it is not permissible to
inflict corporal punishment on malefactors. Also, that it is no sin to eat
meat, eggs, or cheese on any day of the year, except perhaps for the
scandal [it causes], nor, likewise, is there any sin if a man should take
to wife a relative or even his sister. Also, they believe that from the
Blessed Clement down to Master Waldes, without exception, there was
no successor to the blessed apostle Peter nor to Linus or Clement50 who
had the power to bind and to loose. Also, they believe that Pope Syl¬
vester was, by the devil’s prompting, the first builder of the Roman
Church.
[15b] On the Lombards.—The Poor Lombards believe that an evil
priest cannot consecrate the body of Christ, nor will God do so at his
prayers. Also, they believe that souls are produced by propagation (ex
traduce). Also, that children baptized by priests of the Roman Church
do not attain salvation.
[15c] On the Poor of Lyons: How They Consecrate the Mass Once a
Year.—The aforesaid Poor of Lyons consecrate the Mass only once a
year, namely, on Holy Thursday. On that day, just at nightfall, he who
is chief among them, if he is a priest, assembles all his following of both
sexes and has a bench or a stool made ready before them on which
they put a clean cloth, and thereupon they put a good goblet of good,
pure wine and an unleavened loaf. Then he who is presiding says to the
participants: “Let us ask our Lord out of his mercy to forgive our sins
and offenses and that He may out of his mercy grant those things for
which we worthily strive. That He may bring these things to pass, let us
repeat the Lord’s Prayer seven times, to the honor of God and the Holy
Trinity.” Whereupon they all kneel and repeat the Lord’s Prayer seven
times. Then they rise. Then he who is performing the consecration
makes the sign of the Cross over the bread and the goblet of wine; and,
breaking the bread, he gives to each of the participants his portion and
thereafter he gives all to drink of the cup. They remain standing through¬
out, and thus ends their sacrament. And they firmly believe and main-
54. Anselm’s Notebook 373

tain that this is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If any¬
thing is left of the Host, they keep it until Easter and then consume it
all. If, however, some others should ask for it, they might well give it
to them. Through all the rest of the year they give their sick only con¬
secrated bread and wine. In this fashion all the Poor of both sects held
to the same rite of consecration, that which was just described, prior to
the schism which occurred among them... ,51
[19] On the Ministers of the Albanenses and the Concorezzenses:52
Bishop of the sect of Albanenses, Bonaventure of Verona; he is dead.
Elder son, Bertholus of Verona; he is now a convert. Younger son, Henry
of Arezzo; he is now bishop. Deacon of Bergamo, Lanfranc of Brescia.
Deacon of Seprio, Ventura of Bergamo. Deacon of Pavia. Deacon of
Brescia, Peter of Pavia; he was burned at Cremona. Deacon of Ales¬
sandria, Octo Balistorius. Deacon of Cremona, John Vulnerus. Deacon
of Piacenza, Lauterius. Deacon of Verona, Albertinus of Reggio. Bishop
of the Concorezzenses, Hubert Manderius. Elder son, Peter of Limadi.
Younger son, Lanfranc of Brescia. Deacon of Lodi, Odonus of Piacenza.
Deacon of Piacenza, Gerald of Cremona. Deacon of Cremona, Bonderus
of Cremona. Deacon of Alessandria, Peter Pastor of Alessandria.
Deacon of Brescia, Laurence de Gradi.

55. Bernard Guis Description of Heresies

Bernard Gui was a Dominican friar and one of the most notable officials
in the history of the medieval Inquisition, which he served for nearly a
quarter of a century. He was born in the Limousin in 1261 or 1262, prob¬
ably of the lesser nobility, but little is known of his early life. He took the
Dominican habit in 1279 and made his solemn profession a year later; there
followed years of study—first in logic, then in theology—which ended at
Montpellier in 1290. For the next seventeen years he served as prior succes¬
sively in several Dominican convents in southern France until, on January
16, 1307, he was commissioned as an inquisitor by Pope Clement V, with
headquarters in the diocese of Toulouse. There he remained, except for a
few diplomatic missions for the papacy to Italy and northern France, until
1324. On August 26, 1323, he was appointed bishop of Tuy by Pope John
XXII, but seems never to have taken up residence at Tuy. He was trans¬
ferred to the see of Lodfcve on July 20, 1324, and died at Lod&ve on Decem¬
ber 31, 1331.
Bernard Gui was not only a devoted and able administrator, he was also
a prolific writer, producing a mass of material on a variety of subjects,
particularly in the fields of history and theology. His written work is charac-
374 From 1216 to 1325
terized by directness and fidelity to detail rather than by great philosophical
grasp or felicity of expression. His style is usually clear and understandable,
although at times succinct to the point of obscurity.1 Of his works, those which
are of special interest to us are two dealing with the Inquisition. One of these,
which requires only brief mention here, is a collection of the sentences
declared by Gui over a period of seventeen years in eighteen “sermons” or
autos-da-fe.2 It was published under the title Liber sententiarum inquisitionis
Tholosanae ab anno Christi MCCCV1I ad annum MCCCXXIll, forming
the second part of Limborch’s Historia inquisitionis. (The manuscript from
which Limborch worked has disappeared.) During his years as inquisitor
Gui sentenced 930 individuals to what he and members of the local clergy
associated with him in the proceedings considered appropriate penalties; the
collected sentences, forming a quarto volume of 394 pages, summarize the
cases and indicate the basis for the judgments pronounced against the ac¬
cused.8
More immediate to our purpose is the work in which Bernard Gui summed
up his experience as an inquisitor for his fellows. Entitled Practica inqui¬
sitionis heretice pravitatis [the conduct of the inquisition of heretical de¬
pravity], it was composed at intervals toward the end of his career and
probably was finished in 1323-1324.4 There are five parts. The first three
are made up of formulas appropriate to the conduct of the Inquisition:
forms for sentencing those before the court, for the amelioration of penalties,
and for sentences delivered at the “sermon” and certain other times. These
are based on notarial records of action in Bernard Gui’s court or on the
sentences reproduced in the Liber sententiarum The fourth part is a collec¬
.5

tion of papal bulls, canons of councils, and other acts fixing the extent and
limitations of inquisitorial powers. It is based on an earlier, anonymous
Italian tractate of similar import, written about 1280-1292,® but Bernard
Gui worked it over and made additions to such an extent that the product
is substantially his own.7
The fifth and most important part of the Practica comprises principally
a review of the tenets of those heretics whom Gui considered important in
his day: Cathars, Waldenses, “pseudo-Apostles,” 8 Beguins, Jews, and sor¬
cerers or invokers of demons. Certain formulas to be employed in the cases
of those who abjured heresy are also included. The descriptions of the
heresies are based to a considerable extent on earlier works, to which Gui
made additions out of his own experience. For the statement on the Cathars
he utilized the confession of a famous Languedocian heretic of his own day,
Peter Autier, and perhaps some polemical works of the thirteenth century.9
The chapter on the Waldenses exploited several sources, two of which deserve
particular notice. One is the account of the origins of the sect given by
Stephen of Bourbon (No. 33). Even more, Gui relied on the De inquisitione
hereticorum attributed to the Franciscan David of Augsburg.10 He made
some changes, a few of which unfortunately obscure the sense of what he
copied, but he also added observations of his own.11 For the description of
55. Gui on Heresies (Introduction) 375
the pseudo-Apostles, Gui drew on a treatise which he also made the basis
of a longer, separate exposition (the treatise, of Italian origin, is dated
May 1, 1316).12 In contrast to Bernard Gui’s first three chapters, his fourth,
on the Beguins, is derived from his own investigations, interrogations, and
perusal of documents. The last two chapters, on Jews and sorcerers, are in
part adaptations of earlier interrogatories and, in respect of the Jews, in part
based on information from a witness questioned by Gui himself.13 Thus, the
Practica is a combination of information drawn from the work of others
—no rarity among the treatises on heresy— and from personal experience.
The organization of the fifth part reflects the author’s preoccupation with
the orderly processes of the Inquisition. We may well echo Father Dondaine’s
judgment that the Practica, by its scope, the number and selection of its
documents, and the authority of its author, holds first place among the
inquisitorial manuals from the first century of the Inquisition.14 Even if
other works surpass its description of heresies in precision and detail, it
affords us an excellent overview of heresies, through the eyes of an eminently
qualified observer, at the end of the period we are concerned with here.
On Bernard Gui and his work, in addition to the essay of Antoine Thomas
already cited (n. 1), one may consult Leopold Delisle, “Notice sur les manu-
scrits de Bernard Gui,” Notices et extraits de manuscrits de la Bibliotheque
nationale, Vol. XXVII, part II (1879), pp. 169-455; and the Introduction
to the edition from which we translate. The Practica has been edited as a
complete work by Celestin Douais (Paris, 1886). We have, however, used
the edition by Guillaume Mollat of the fifth part only of the Practica.16
It is Bernard Gui, Manuel de Vinquisiteur, ed. with a French translation by
Guillaume Mollat (Les Classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen age,
VIII, IX [Paris, 1926-1927]).16 The translation is made by permission of
the copyright holder, Belles-lettres.

1323-1324

THE CONDUCT OF THE INQUISITION OF

HERETICAL DEPRAVITY

Part V: On the Method, Practice, and Procedure Used in Seeking

Out and Interrogating Heretics, Their Believers, and Accomplices

[Preface]
Here follows the fifth and last part of the treatise, wherein are dis¬
cussed the method, practice, and procedure used in searching out and
interrogating heretics, their believers, and accomplices. It includes the
separate frauds, devices, and wiles whereby they conceal themselves,
each the more subtly to escape from the interrogations aimed especially
at him. Among them are included the Manichaeans; and the Waldenses,
376 From 1216 to 1325
or Poor of Lyons; as well as certain pseudo-Apostles, who falsely claim
to be the apostles of Christ although they are rather apostles of Anti¬
christ. There are also included a considerable number of others of a
certain pestiferous sect which emerged in recent times, who, in simula¬
tion rather than assimilation of the poverty of evangelical perfection,
call themselves the Poor of Christ, saying that theirs is the third order
or third rule of St. Francis and who, in the vernacular, are commonly
called Beguins and Beguines. It also includes others, who, after having
been converted from the perfidy of the Jews to the faith of Christ, return
to the vomit of Judaism. Lastly are given the methods of attack upon
the pestilence or the pestilential error of sorcerers, diviners, invokers of
demons, and others of that kind. Various special forms for abjuring
heresy during the course of a hearing are also set forth. i

General Advice and Remarksv—This is the procedure when anyone

is to be heard or examined, whether he has come in person of his own
free will, has been cited, or has been summoned as suspect, noted, de¬
famed, or accused of the crime of heresy, of showing favor or hospitality
to heretics, or of anything else which falls within the cognizance of the
Inquisition of heretical depravity or has any connection with it.2 In the
first place, after he has been quietly and unostentatiously summoned
and warned by the inquisitor or the inquisitor’s deputy, have him swear
upon the Holy Gospels of God to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth in regard to the matter of heresy and whatever touches there¬
upon or is connected in any way with the office of the Inquisition. He
is to do this both in respect of himself as a principal and also as a witness
in the case of other persons, living or dead.3
Once the oath has been taken and registered, let the witness be
urgently exhorted to tell the truth, of his own accord, in the matter of
heresy, so far as he knows, has known, or has heard of it. If, however,
he requests time or opportunity for deliberation in order to give a more
carefully considered response, that may be granted him if it seems
expedient to the inquisitor, especially if he seems to be seeking it in good
faith, not guilefully. Otherwise, he is required to answer about himself
without delay.
Thereupon, the date of the hearing may be entered by a notary, thus:
“In such a year, on such date, one N., from such town or village, of
such diocese, who came of his own free will, or was cited or summoned,
was formally placed in judgment before the religious person N.—inquis-
55. Gui on Heresies (Preface) 377

itor of heretical depravity, deputed by the Apostolic See to the kingdom

of France—having taken oath upon the Holy Gospels of God to speak
the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the fact or the crime of
heresy and everything pertaining thereto, both in respect of himself as
a principal and also as a witness in the case of other persons, living or
dead, has said and confessed,” etc.
It should be noted further that if anyone should argue openly and
obviously against the faith, adducing the arguments and the authorities
upon which heretics are wont to rely, such a person may easily be proved
guilty of heresy by loyal, learned sons of the Church, for one is presumed
to be a heretic from the very fact of striving to defend error. But because
modem heretics endeavor and seek covertly to disguise their errors
rather than openly to confess them, even men versed in the Scriptures
cannot prove their guilt, because they manage to escape by verbal
trickery and carefully contrived subtleties. The result of this is that men
of learning are rather thrown into confusion by them, and those heretics,
glorying therein, are further encouraged by observing how they thus
elude learned men, slipping cleverly out of their hands by the sly cun¬
ning and tortuous ambiguity of their replies.
For it is exceedingly difficult to catch heretics when they themselves
do not frankly avow error but conceal it, or when sure and sufficient
evidence against them is not at hand. Under such circumstances, serious
problems beset the investigator from every side. For, on the one hand,
his conscience torments him if an individual is punished who has neither
confessed nor been proved guilty; on the other, it causes even more
anguish to the mind of the inquisitor, familiar through much experience
with the falsity, cunning, and malice of such persons, if by their wily
astuteness they escape punishment, to the detriment of the faith, since
thereby they are strengthened, multiplied, and rendered more crafty.
Another consideration, too, is that the faithful laity see occasion for
scandal in the fact that the proceedings of the Inquisition, once started
against someone, are abandoned, as it were, in confusion, and they are
to some extent weakened in the faith by observing that learned men are
thus mocked by low and uncouth persons. For they believe that we have
at our command in support of the faith arguments so clear and obvious
that no one may oppose us in these matters without our knowing at
once how to overcome him, in such wise that even laymen may clearly
perceive just what these reasons are. Hence, in such a situation, it is not
378 From 1216 to 1325

expedient to dispute in matters of the faith against such astute heretics

in the presence of laymen.
Furthermore, a point worthy of attention is that just as no one
medicine is for all diseases, but rather different and specific medicines
exist for particular diseases, so neither is the same method of questioning,
investigation, and examination to be employed for all heretics of the
various sects, but for each, whether there be one or many, a particular
and suitable method ought to be utilized. So the inquisitor, like a prudent
physician of souls, will proceed cautiously in regard to the persons
whom he questions or concerning whom he makes inquiry. He will
weigh their quality, condition, standing, health, and local circumstances,
and will act with caution on the matters upon which there is to be
inquiry and examination. He should not impose or force all the follow¬
ing interrogatories upon everyone without distinction and in the same
order; nor, in the case of some, should he be satisfied with these ques¬
tions and only these. But with the bridle of discretion let him so harness
the wiles of heretical persons that, with the help of God and the skill of
a midwife, he may draw the writhing serpent from the sink and abyss of
errors.
In these matters, no single and infallible pattern can be set, for, if
that were done, the children of darkness might anticipate too far in
advance the sole customary method and might too easily avoid or
guard against it as a trap. Therefore, the wise inquisitor should be
careful to set his course by the replies of the witnesses, the sworn
statements of accusers, the counsel of men taught by experience, the
shrewdness of his own natural intelligence, and the following questions
or interrogatories, as God shall direct.
We shall append in order in the following pages material of use in
giving some sort of idea as to how examinations may be conducted
against five sects—the Manichaeans; the Waldenses, or Poor of Lyons;
the pseudo-Apostles; those who are called in the vernacular Beguins;
Jews who have been converted to the faith of Christ and have returned
to the vomit of Judaism—and also against sorcerers, diviners, and in¬
vokers of demons, whose noxious influence is exceedingly harmful to
the purity of the faith. A general outline of the error of each sect will
be given first, followed by an outline of the plan and method of con¬
ducting the examination, as will appear on the following pages.
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter I) 379
[Chapter 1: Manichaeans of the Present Time]

[1] Concerning the Errors of the Manichaeans of the Present Time.—

The sect and heresy of the Manichaeans and the supporters of its aber¬
ration declare and confess that there are two gods and two lords, to wit,
a beneficent God and an evil one. They assert that the creation of
everything visible and corporeal was wrought, not by God the Heavenly
Father, whom they term the beneficent God, but by die devil, or Satan,
the wicked God—for him they call the evil god, the god of this age, and
the prince of this world. Thus, they postulate two creators, namely, God
and the devil; and two creations, that is, one invisible and incorporeal,
the other visible and corporeal.
Also, they pretend that there are two churches: The beneficent one,
they say, is their sect, which they declare to be the Church of Jesus
Christ. But the other they call the evil church; this they hold to be the
Roman Church, which they shamelessly refer to as the mother of
fornication, the great Babylon, the harlot and cathedral of the devil, and
the synagogue of Satan. They despise and distort all its offices, its
orders, its ordinations, and its statutes. They call all who hold its faith
heretics and sinners, and they declare as dogma that no one can be
saved in the faith of the Roman Church.
Also, all the sacraments of the Roman Church of our Lord Jesus
Christ—the Eucharist or sacrament of the altar, baptism which makes
use of actual water, confirmation, ordination, extreme unction, penance,
and marriage of man and woman—each and every one they declare
empty and vain. And, like monkeys, they devise in imitation certain
others which seem almost like them. In place of baptism by water, they
concoct another baptism, a spiritual one, which they call the consol-
amentum of the Holy Spirit, whenever they admit anyone, in health or
in sickness, into their sect and order by the imposition of hands, in
accordance with their abominable rite. In place of the consecrated bread
of the Eucharist, the body of Christ, they concoct a certain bread which
they call “blessed bread” or “bread of holy prayer.” This they hold in
their hands at the beginning of their meal; and, following their ritual,
they bless, break, and distribute it to those present and to their be¬
lievers. As for the sacrament of penance, they say that true penance
consists in entering and remaining faithful to their sect and order. They
380 From 1216 to 1325

say that all sins have been forgiven those who enter their sect and order,
whether in sickness or in health; that such persons have been absolved
from all their sins without any atonement whatsoever and even without
making restitution, should they possess another’s property, so long as
they remain true to their sect and order. They claim that they have the
identical and equivalent power over these matters that Peter, Paul, and
the other apostles of the Lord possessed. Confession of sins made to
priests of the Roman Church they hold to be utterly without value for
salvation, and they say that neither the pope nor anyone else connected
with the Roman Church has the power to absolve anyone from his sins.
Instead of the sacrament of carnal marriage between man and woman,
they pretend that there is a spiritual marriage between the soul and God,
namely, when the perfected or consoled heretics themselves receive
anyone into their sect or order.
Also, they deny the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ through
Mary, ever virgin, declaring that He did not have a true human body
or true human flesh such as other men have because of their human
substance, that He did not really suffer and die on the Cross, nor really
rise from the dead, nor really ascend into heaven in human body and
flesh, but that all these things happened only figuratively. Also, they
deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the true mother of our Lord
Jesus Christ or was a carnal woman, but say that their sect and order is
the Virgin Mary, that is, the true, chaste, and virginal repentance which
gives birth to sons of God on the occasion of their reception into this
very sect and order. Also, they deny that there will be a resurrection of
human bodies, imagining in its stead certain spiritual bodies and a sort
of inner man. They say that the future resurrection is to be understood
in terms of these two concepts.
They hold, believe, and teach the afore-mentioned errors and very
many others which necessarily proceed therefrom. Nevertheless, because
of misleading expressions and terms, to inexperienced persons and to
laymen they seem at first sight to profess the true faith, for they say
that they believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the
creator of all; that they believe in the Holy Roman Church, in the Lord
Jesus Christ, in the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the incarnation, passion,
resurrection, and ascension of the same Lord Jesus Christ, in holy
baptism, in true penance, in the true body of Christ, and in the sacra¬
ment of matrimony. Yet, when the truth is more attentively tested,
55, Gui on Heresies (Chapter I) 381
sought for, and searched out, it appears that they utter all the foregoing
in duplicity and falsehood, in accordance with their ideas as set forth
and explained above, in order thus to deceive simple persons and even
highly educated men if they happen to be inexperienced. They teach
and expound to their believers all the errors mentioned above and, once
they have been discovered and cannot hide, they openly defend, affirm,
and profess them before inquisitors. Thenceforth, what is needful is to
exhort them to conversion and, in every possible way, to show them
their error, using the services of specially trained and diligent men.
Inquisitors, in normal practice, detain such perfected heretics for a
rather long time for a number of reasons, first, in order more frequently
to urge them to conversion, for their conversion is especially helpful.
The conversion of Manichaean heretics is usually genuine and seldom
feigned; when they are converted, they tell everything, reveal the truth,
and betray their confederates, whence results a great harvest. Also,
as long as such perfected heretics are held, their believers and accom¬
plices more readily confess and expose themselves and others, fearing
to be betrayed by the heretics if the latter are converted. However, after
their conversion has been repeatedly urged and invited, if the heretics
are unwilling to return to the faith and seem to be obdurate, sentence is
pronounced against them and they are abandoned to the secular arm
and tribunal.
[2] Concerning the Way of Life and the Practices of These Manicha-
earts,—It is expedient, also, to touch on some facts in regard to the
way of life, the customs, and the behavior of these heretics, since thereby
they are more easily recognized and apprehended.
In the first place, it should be known that under no circumstances do
they take an oath.
Also, they observe annually three forty-day fasts, namely, from the
feast of St. Brice [November 13] until Christmas, from Shrove Sunday
until Easter, and from the feast of Pentecost until the feasts of the
apostles Peter and Paul [June 29]. The first and last week of each
period they call “strict,” for then they fast on bread and water, whereas,
during the other weeks, they fast on bread and water for three days
only. All the rest of the year they fast on bread and water three days
each week, unless they are traveling or are ill. Also, they never eat meats
or even touch them, or cheese, eggs, or anything which is born of the
flesh by generation or coition.4
382 From 1216 to 1325

Also, under no circumstances will they kill any animal or any winged
creature, for they say and believe that there are in brute animals and
even in birds those spirits which leave the bodies of men (if they have
not been received into their sect and order through the imposition of
hands according to their custom), and that these spirits pass from one
body to another.
Also, they touch no woman.
Also, at the beginning of the month, when they are gathered together
with their believers or by themselves, they bless a loaf or a piece of
bread. Holding it in their hands, with a towel or some white cloth
hanging from their necks, they say the Lord’s Prayer and break the
bread into small pieces. This bread they call “bread of holy prayer,”
and “broken bread”; their believers call it “blessed bread” or “con¬
secrated bread” (panem signatum). They partake of it as communion at
the beginning of a meal; they give and distribute it to their believers.
Also, they teach their believers to show them reverence in a ceremony
which they call the melioramentum, although we call it adoration. The
believer bends the knees and, with hands clasped, bows low before the
heretics over some bench or down to the ground. He bows three times,
each time saying as he rises, “Bless us,” and finally concluding, “Good
Christians, give us God’s blessing and yours. Pray the Lord for us that
God may keep us from an evil death and bring us to a good end or
into the hands of faithful Christians.” The heretic replies: “From God
and from us you have it (that is, the benediction); and may God bless
you and save your soul from an evil death, and bring you to a good end.”
By “evil death,” the heretics mean dying in the faith of the Roman
Church, while by “a good end” and by “the hands of faithful Christians,”
they mean being received at the end of one’s life into their own sect and
order, according to their practice; this they hold to be a good end. How¬
ever, they say that the reverence described above is made not to them¬
selves but to the Holy Spirit, who, they say, is in them and by Whom they
have been received into the sect and order which they claim is theirs.
Also, they teach their believers to make with them a pact, which they
call “the agreement” (la covenensa), to the effect that the believers desire
to be taken into the heretics’ sect and order at the end of their life.
Once that pact is sealed, the heretics may accept them during an illness,
even though they should have lost the power of speech or their memory
should have failed.5
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter I) 383

[3] Concerning the Method of Heretication or the Reception of the

Sick into This Sect or Order.—The following is the method of admitting
persons to their sect or order during an illness or near the end of life of
the suppliant. The heretic asks the individual who is to be received, if
[the invalid] can speak, if he or she wishes to become a good Christian
man or woman and wishes to receive holy baptism. Upon receiving an
affirmative answer, accompanied by the request, “Bless us,” the heretic,
with his hand over the head of the sick person (but not touching her if
it be a woman) and holding the Book, repeats the Gospel, “In the
beginning was the Word,” as far as “the Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us.”6 At the conclusion of the reading, the invalid repeats
the Lord’s Prayer, if he can; if not, one of those present says it for him.
Thereafter, the sick man, if able, bows his head over clasped hands and
says three times, “Bless us,” while all the others present adore the heretic
in the fashion described above. On the spot, or in a place apart, the
heretic makes many prostrations, obeisances, and genuflections to the
ground, repeating the Lord’s Prayer several times while bowing and
rising.
[4] Concerning Their Method of Religious Instruction.—It would
take long to treat in detail of the methods by which these Manichaean
heretics preach and propound their doctrines to their believers, but it
is well to present some of them briefly here.
In the first place, they usually say of themselves that they are good
Christians who do not swear or lie or speak evil of anyone; that they
kill neither man nor beast nor anything which has the breath of life; and
that they hold the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel, as
Christ and the apostles taught it. They say that they occupy the place
of the apostles and that it is because of the foregoing facts that the
members of the Roman Church, to wit, the prelates, the secular and
regular clergy, and especially the inquisitors of heretics, persecute them
and call them heretics, just as the Pharisees persecuted Christ and His
apostles, although they are really good men and good Christians.
Also, they discuss with laymen at every opportunity the wicked life
of clerics and prelates of the Roman Church. They give examples and
speak at length about their pride, cupidity, avarice, their uncleanliness
of life, and whatever other evils they know. In this connection, they cite
the texts of the Gospels and the Epistles, as they interpret and under¬
stand them, against the state of prelates, clergy, and members of re-
384 From 1216 to 1325

ligious orders, whom they refer to as Pharisees and false prophets, those
who “say, and do not.”7
One by one, they tear down and disparage all the sacraments of the
Church, especially the sacrament of the Eucharist, saying that the body
of Christ is not therein, for were it large as the greatest mountain,
Christians would already have eaten all of it. Also, they say, the Host
comes from straw and passes through the tails of stallions and mares
(referring to the flour’s being passed through the sieve); also, that it
goes into the latrine of the stomach and is ejected through the basest
part of the body, which could not happen, they insist, if God were
present.
Also, in the matter of baptism, [they say] that the water is a material
substance and corruptible, and therefore is part of the work and creation
of the evil God and cannot hallow the soul, but the clergy sell that water
out of avarice, just as they sell land for the burial of the dead and oil
for the sick when they anoint them, and just as they make a profit from
the confession of sins to the priests. Also, they claim that confessions
made to priests of the Roman Church are of no value, for, inasmuch as
the priests are sinners, they cannot bind and loose and, being themselves
unclean, they cannot cleanse another person.
Also, they say that the Cross of Christ deserves no adoration or
veneration because, according to them, no one adores or venerates the
gallows on which his father or some relative or friend has been hanged.
Also, they say that those who adore the Cross should, with equal right,
adore all thorns and all lances, for just as in Christ’s passion the Cross
was for His body, so were the thorns for His head and the soldier’s
lance for His side. Many other offensive teachings do they set forth on
the subject of the sacraments of the Church.
Also, they read the Gospels and the Epistles in the vernacular, inter¬
preting and expounding them in their own favor and against the existing
establishments of the Roman Church. It would take too long to deal with
these points individually here, but one may read them at greater length
in their books, which they have filled and defiled with that material,
and may hear them fully in the confessions of their believers after
conversion.8
[5] The Following Are Suggested Questions to Be Put to Believers of
the Sect of the Manichaeans.—In the first place, let the one under
examination be asked whether he has anywhere seen or known a heretic
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter I) 385

or heretics, knowing or believing them to be such or to have that name

or reputation; where he saw them; how often; with whom; and when.
Also, [ask] whether he had any familiar association with them; when;
how; and who was responsible for it; also, whether he received any
heretical person or persons in his home; who they were; who brought
them there; how long they stayed; who visited them there and escorted
them thence; and where they went; also, whether he heard their preach¬
ing; and what they said and taught; also, whether he adored them or
saw them adored by others, or saw reverences made to them in the
heretical fashion; and about the practice of adoration; also, whether he
ate of their blessed bread; and about the method of blessing the said
bread; also, whether he made a pact or covenant with them to the effect
that he wished to be received into their sect and order at the point
of death.
Also, [ask] whether he saluted them or saw them saluted by others
in the heretical fashion, which is to place a hand upon each of the
heretic’s cheeks, bending one’s head, and turning it toward each cheek,
and saying thrice, “Your blessing,” a mode of salutation which the
believers who [are to become] perfected observe upon the arrival or
departure of heretics.
Also, [ask] whether he was present at a heretication of any person
and about the method of heretication; the names of the heretic or
heretics; the persons there present; the place in the house where the
invalid lay; the time and hour; whether the hereticated person be¬
queathed anything to the heretics—what, how much, and who paid the
legacy; whether adoration was performed there to the said heretic;
whether the hereticated person died of that illness and where he was
buried; and who brought there and escorted thence the heretic or
heretics; also, whether he believed that the hereticated person could be
saved in the faith of the heretics.
Also, [ask] what he heard said or taught by the heretics against the
faith and sacraments of the Roman Church; what he heard them saying
about the sacrament of the Eucharist; about baptism, matrimony, con¬
fession of sins to priests, adoration or veneration of the Holy Cross;
and similarly for other errors enumerated above; also, whether he be¬
lieved that heretics were good men and truthful; that they had and kept
a good faith, a good sect, and good doctrine; that the heretics themselves
and their believers could be saved in their faith and sect; also, how long
386 From 1216 to 1325

he has shared in or persisted in the said belief; also, when he first began
to accept this belief; also, whether he still believes it; also, when and
why he abandoned it
Also, [ask] whether he has ever on any other occasion been sum¬
moned or cited before any inquisitor; when and why; whether on any
other occasion he has confessed in the matter of heresy; whether he has
abjured heresy before any inquisitor; whether he was restored to the
communion of the Church or absolved; also, whether since that time he
has in any way been involved in the matter of heresy; which heresy; and
in what way, as listed above; also, whether he knows any person or
persons who are believers in or sympathizers with the activity of
heretics, or are their harborers; also, whether he has ever accompanied
a heretic or heretics from place to place or has had their books in his
possession; also, whether his relatives were believers or were sym¬
pathizers with the activities of heretics or had been penanced for com¬
plicity in heresy.
This is the general line of questioning for the sect under consideration,
from which special questions often may be developed through the
diligence and alertness of the inquisitor.
[6] A Few Words of Advice and Suggestion.—In regard to the fore¬
going items, one should note well and be advised that, although such
elaborate questions may be posed—sometimes together with others, in
view of the diversity of persons and actions—to draw and worm out the
truth more completely, it is not expedient that all interrogations be
formally recorded but only those which more clearly touch the core
or essence of the matter and seem designed the better to elicit the truth.
For, if so great a number of questions are posed in any one deposition,
another deposition which comprises fewer may seem too brief. Also,
with such a multiplicity of written questions in the course of the hearing,
agreement in the testimony of witnesses can hardly be achieved, a con¬
tingency to be borne in mind and avoided.

[Chapter II: Concerning the Sect of the Waldenses\

[1] The Following Deals with the Sect of the Waldenses, First, with
Its Origins and the Time at Which It Began.—The sect and heresy of
the Waldenses or Poor of Lyons began about the year of our Lord 1170.
Its moving spirit and founder was a certain citizen of Lyons named
Waldes, or Waldens, from whom his followers received their name. He
55. Gut on Heresies (Chapter II) 387

was a rich man who, having given up all his property, resolved to devote
himself to poverty and to evangelical perfection, just as the apostles had
done. He had procured for himself translations of the Gospels and some
other books of the Bible in vernacular French, also some texts from
St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory, arranged topi¬
cally, which he and his adherents called “sentences.” On frequently
reading these over among themselves, although very seldom under¬
standing them aright, they were carried away by their emotions and,
although they had but little learning, they usurped the function of the
apostles by daring to preach “in the streets and the broad ways.”1
This man Waldes, or Waldens, won over to a like presumption many
people of both sexes, made men and women his accomplices, and sent
them out to preach as his disciples. They, men and women alike, al¬
though they were stupid and uneducated, wandered through villages,
entered homes, preached in the squares and even in churches, the men
especially, and spread many errors everywhere. Moreover, when they
were summoned by the archbishop of Lyons, John of the Fair Hands,
and by him forbidden such audacity, they were not at all willing to obey,
alleging as excuse for their madness that “we ought to obey God rather
than men,”2 Who had commanded His apostles to “preach the gospel
to every creature.”5 By virtue of a false profession of poverty and a
feigned appearance of sanctity, they arrogated to themselves what had
been said to the apostles. Boldly declaring that they were imitators and
successors of these apostles, they cast aspersions upon prelates and
clergy for abundant wealth and lives of luxury.
Thus, through presumptuously usurping the office of preaching, they
became teachers of error. After they had been warned to desist, they
rendered themselves disobedient and contumacious, for which they were
excommunicated and driven from that city and their native land. Finally,
indeed, because they remained obdurate, they were pronounced schis¬
matics at a certain council which was held at Rome before the Lateran
Council, and were then condemned as heretics. And so, as they had
grown in number on the earth, they scattered throughout that province
and neighboring areas and into the region of Lombardy. Separated and
cut off from the Church, when they mingled with other heretics and
imbibed their errors, they combined with their own fantasies the errors
and heresies of heretics of earlier days.4
388 From 1216 to 1325

[2] Concerning the Three Names Commonly Used for These Wal-
denses. The sect of the Waldenses, Poor of Lyons, or “Sandal-Shod”5
was so called or named from a certain man, Waldes, or Waldens, the
moving spirit and first founder of this sect; they were also called Poor
of Lyons, from the place where the sect began and had its origin; and
they were called the Sandal-Shod because, from the very beginning of
the sect, perfected Waldenses wore a device shaped roughly like a
shield, on the upper part of their sandals, by this sign being distinguish¬
able from their associates and believers.
The errors of this sect are subjoined in the following pages in order
to make possible a more discreet inquest and examination on the basis
of advance information.
[3] Concerning the Errors of the Waldenses of Recent Times, for in
the Past They Had Many Others. Now, the principal heresy of the
aforesaid Waldenses was and still continues to be contempt of ecclesias¬
tical authority. Then, having been excommunicated for this and given
over to Satan, they were plunged by him into countless errors, and they
combined with their own fantasies the errors of heretics of an earlier day.
The foolish followers and impious teachers of this sect hold and teach
that they are not subject to our lord pope, the Roman pontiff, or to
other prelates of the Roman Church, for they declare that the Roman
Church persecutes and censures them unjustly and unduly. Also, they
declare positively that they cannot be excommunicated by the said
Roman pontiff and prelates, to none of whom ought obedience be given
should he enjoin or command the members and teachers of this sect to
desert and abjure it—this despite the fact that it has been condemned
as heretical by the Roman Church.
Also, they hold and teach that every oath, in or out of court, without
exception or qualification, has been forbidden by God as unlawful and
sinful. Here they apply the words of the Holy Gospel and of St. James
the apostle6 about not swearing, although with an interpretation as
extravagant as it is erroneous. For, in fact, as a matter of law and duty
an oath may be taken to establish truth in court, according to the sound
teaching of the saints, of the doctors of the Church, of the tradition of
the same Holy Catholic Church, and also in consonance with the fol¬
lowing decree of the Church, announced some time ago against the said
error: “If any among them are unwilling to take an oath because, out of
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter II) 389

damnable superstition, they reject the religious obligation of the oath,

they are by that very fact to be considered heretics.”7
It should be noted, however, that these Waldenses relax the prohibi¬
tion on oaths by permitting any of their number to swear in order to
avoid or prevent his own or another’s death, and also to keep from
betraying his associates or revealing the secrets of his sect. For they say
that the unforgivable crime and sin against the Holy Spirit is to betray
any perfected member of their sect.
Also, out of the same font of error, the aforesaid sect and heresy
declares that any judicial process is forbidden by God and is, con¬
sequently, a sin and that it is contrary to God’s command for any judge,
in any case or for any reason, to sentence a man to corporal punishment
involving bloodshed, or to death. They seize on the words of the Holy
Gospels—“Judge not that ye be not judged”; “Thou shalt not kill”;8
and other similar passages—without the proper explanation essential to
their interpretation. This they do without understanding the sense or
accepting the signification or explanation which the Holy Roman Church
wisely perceives and transmits to the faithful in accordance with the
teaching of the Fathers, the doctors, and the canonical decrees.
Also, as it strays from the way and the right path, this sect does not
accept or consider valid, but despises, rejects, and damns the canonical
decrees, the decretals of the supreme pontiffs, the rules concerning
observance of fasts and holy days, and the precepts of the Fathers.
Also, in a more pernicious error in respect of the sacrament of pen¬
ance and the keys of the Church, these sectaries say, hold, and teach
that, just as the apostles had it from Christ, they have from God alone
and from no other the power to hear confessions from men and women
who wish to confess to them, to give absolution, and to impose penance.
And they do hear the confessions of such persons, they do give absolu¬
tion and impose penance, although they are not priests or clerics
ordained by any bishop of the Roman Church but are laymen and
nothing more. They do not claim to have any such power from the
Roman Church, but rather disclaim it; and, in truth, they have it neither
from God nor from his Church, because they are outside the Church
and have been cut off by the Church itself, beyond whose portals there
is no true penance or salvation.
Also, this sect and heresy ridicules the indulgences which are pub-

i
390 From 1216 to 1325
lished and granted by prelates of the Church, asserting that they are of
no value whatever.
In regard to the sacrament of the Eucharist they err, saying, not
publicly but in private among themselves, that if the priest who cele¬
brates or consecrates the Mass is a sinner, the bread and wine do not
change into the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the altar;
and in their view anyone is a sinner who is not a member of their sect.
Also, they say that any righteous person, even though he be a layman
and not a cleric ordained by a Catholic bishop, can perform the con¬
secration of the body and blood of Christ, provided only that he be a
member of their sect. This they apply even to women, with the same
proviso that they belong to their sect. Thus they teach that every holy
person is a priest.9
[4] Concerning Their Method or Ritual for the Celebration of Mass
The following is their usual method or ritual for celebrating Mass. They
consecrate or celebrate it only once a year, on Holy Thursday. On that
day, just at nightfall, he who is chief among them, even though he is not
a cleric ordained by a Catholic bishop, assembles all his following of
both sexes. He has a suitable bench or chest made ready before them
with a clean cloth spread upon it. Next, they place thereon a goblet, full
of good, pure wine, and an ashcake, an unleavened cake, or a loaf of
unleavened bread. Then he who is presiding says to the participants:
“Let us ask our Lord in His mercy to forgive our sins and our short¬
comings and in His mercy to grant those things for which we worthily
strive. And that He may bring these things to pass, let us repeat the
Lord’s Prayer seven times, to the honor of God and the Holy Trinity.”
Whereupon, they all kneel, repeat the Lord’s Prayer seven times, and
then rise.
Then he who is performing the consecration makes the sign of the
Cross over the bread and the goblet of wine and, breaking the bread,
gives to each of the participants his portion. Thereafter, he gives all to
drink of the cup. They remain standing during the whole ceremony.
Thus ends their sacrifice. They firmly believe and maintain that this is
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If anything is left of the
Host, they keep it until Easter and then consume it all. Through all the
rest of the year, too, they give their sick only consecrated bread and
wine. In this fashion all the Poor of Lyons, or Waldenses, observed the
same rite of consecration prior to the schism which occurred among
JJ. Gui on Heresies (Chapter II) 391

them, that is, before they split into the Poor called the Lombards and
the Poor on this side of the Alps.
Also, these Waldenses deny that there is a purgatory for souls after
this life and, in consequence, declare that prayers, alms, celebration of
masses, and other pious services done by the faithful on behalf of the
dead are of no avail.
Also, they censure and condemn prelates and the secular and regular
clergy of the Roman Church, speaking disparagingly of their office.
They hold them to be the blind who lead the blind, who neither preserve
Gospel truth nor practice apostolic poverty. In a bitter lie, they aver
that the Roman Church is a house of falsehood. Also, comparing
apostolic life and perfection with their own and considering their merits
to be on an equal level, they vaunt themselves vainly, saying they are
successors to the apostles, boasting that they maintain and observe
evangelical and apostolic poverty.
Also, they assert that there are three orders in their church, which
are deacon, priest, and bishop, whose particular powers stem only from
themselves, not from the Roman Church.10 Nay more, they do not think
that the holy orders of the Roman Church come from God but say they
are the result of human tradition. So, they use the deceptive trick of
professing their belief in the existence of the holy orders of episcopate,
priesthood, and diaconate in the Holy Church, meaning, however,
their own.
Also, they say there are no real miracles performed in the Church by
the merits and prayers of the saints, for none of the saints ever per¬
formed miracles. Also, they say and affirm in private that the saints in
heaven hearken not to the prayers of the faithful nor do they heed the
acts of veneration whereby we on earth honor them. They say that the
saints do not pray for us and so it is useless for us to seek their help.
Hence, they scorn the festivals which we celebrate in veneration of the
saints and the other acts by which we venerate and honor them, and on
feast days they labor, when they can do so with safety.
These three tenets they do not reveal indiscriminately to their be¬
lievers but keep within the circle of the perfected of the sect: namely,
disbelief in the miracles of the saints; refusal to seek their help; and
nonobservance of holy days, except for Sunday and the days of the
Blessed Virgin Mary (but some add those of the apostles and the
evangelists).
392 From 1216 to 1325
In their conventicles, however, they do impart secretly to their be¬
lievers these and not a few other erroneous and unsound teachings
which necessarily follow from them. Also, they preach to their believers
from the Gospels, the Epistles, and from other Holy Scriptures, which
they corrupt as they expound them, like masters of error who do not
know how to be disciples of truth, notwithstanding the fact that preach¬
ing is wholly forbidden to laymen.
One should be aware, also, that this sect has preserved and observed
many other errors from former days and is said still to cling to them
secretly in some localities. Among these are the celebration of Mass on
Holy Thursday, as we have said above; the detestable intercourse of any
man with any woman, which is indiscriminately practiced in darkness;
the apparition of a cat and sprinkling with the tail; and various other
practices which are discussed in more detail in little tracts dealing with
the subject.11
[5] Concerning the Waldensian Way of Life.—The customs and the
way of life of the Waldenses should also be touched on briefly to aid
somewhat in singling them out and recognizing them.
In the first place, one should know that the Waldenses have and
”12
install one superior over themselves, whom they call their “majoral,
one whom all are bound to obey, just as all Catholics are under the
obligation of obedience to our lord pope.
Also, the Waldenses commonly eat and drink the ordinary foods.
Also, those who can and who so desire, fast on Monday and Wednesday,
but while fasting, they eat meat. Also, they fast on Friday and during
Lent, at which times they abstain from meat in order to avoid shocking
others, for they say it is not a sin to eat meat on any day, inasmuch as
Christ did not forbid eating meat or command abstinence therefrom.
Also, after they are accepted into that society, which they call “the
brotherhood,” and have promised to obey their superior and to observe
evangelical poverty, they must preserve chastity and possess nothing of
their own, but must sell all that they have, put the proceeds in a com¬
mon fund, and live on alms given to them by their believers and sym¬
pathizers. He who is chief among them distributes and dispenses to
each one according to his need.
Also, the Waldenses praise continence to their believers, yet they
admit that burning passion must be satisfied, however base the means.
Citing the words of the Apostle, “It is better to marry than to be
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter II) 393
burnt,”13 they declare that it is better to satisfy passion by any means,
however shameful, than to be tempted within the heart. This, however,
they keep very secret, lest they fall into disrepute with their believers.
Also, they take collections among their believers and friends and turn
that which has been given and collected over to their superior.
Also, every year they hold or celebrate one or two chapters-general
in some important community, as secretly as possible, gathering, as if
they were merchants, in a house leased long before by one or more of
their believers. In those chapters, the chief (major) of them all arranges
and disposes of the business involving priests and deacons and those
who are to be sent out among their believers and friends in various
regions and districts to hear confessions and collect alms. He is also
informed and given an accounting of the collections and expenditures.
Also, they do not work with their hands after they have become
perfected, nor do they undertake any task for money, unless perhaps as
a stratagem in an emergency, to avoid being detected or seized.
Also, they commonly refer to themselves as “brothers,” and say that
they are the Poor of Christ, or the Poor of Lyons.
Also, in order to protect themselves, they sometimes push themselves
into feigned familiarity with members of religious orders and the clergy,
lavish favors or gifts upon them, or adopt a fawning or servile attitude
toward them, thus to acquire for themselves and theirs a freer oppor¬
tunity to remain undiscovered, to live, and to injure souls. Also, they
attend churches and sermons, in all outward ways comport themselves
in a religious and seemly manner, and strive to use a vocabulary that
seems unctuous and discreet.
Also, they pray very often dining the day and warn and instruct their
believers to imitate and accompany them. Now, their manner of prayer
is this: Kneeling on the ground, they bend forward over and support
themselves upon some bench or other object of the kind; on bended
knees, bowed down to earth, they hold their position in silence long
enough to repeat the Lord’s Prayer thirty or forty times, or occasionally
more. They do this regularly every day when they are among their
believers and those who consort with them in heresy, but excluding
outsiders: before and after the noon meal; before and after dinner; at
night when they propose to retire, before getting into bed; also in the
morning after arising; and at certain other times during the day, both
morning and afternoon.
394 From 1216 to 1325
Also, at those times they say no other prayer, nor do they teach or
have any other than the Lord’s Prayer. They have no use for the
salutation to the Blessed Mary, the Hail Mary, or for the Apostles’
Creed, “I believe in God,” because, they say, these were provided and
composed by the Roman Church, not by Christ, However, they do recite
and teach seven articles of faith on divinity, seven on humanity, the
ten commandments of the Decalogue, and seven works of mercy, which
they have arranged and composed in fixed form in a sort of com¬
pendium. In this they have exceedingly great pride and show themselves
instantly ready to answer for their faith. They can, then, be trapped in
this way: “Recite to me the Creed, that is, ‘I believe in God,’ as the
Catholic Church has it, inasmuch as all the articles of faith are in¬
cluded therein.” To this, they reply, “I do not know it, for no one has
taught it to me in that form.”
Also, before seating themselves at table, they bless it, saying: “Bless
us, O Lord, have mercy upon us. O Christ, have mercy upon us. O
Lord, have mercy upon us, Thou our Father.”14 Then the one longest
among them says in the vernacular, “May God, who for his disciples
blessed the five barley loaves and two fishes in the desert,15 bless this
table, what is upon it, and what shall be placed thereon.” Then he
makes the sign of the Cross, saying, “In the name of the Father, of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
Also, when they rise from the table after the midday meal or after
dinner, they give thanks thus: The one longest among them repeats in
the vernacular the words from the Apocalypse: “Benediction and glory
and wisdom and thanksgiving, honor and power and strength to our God
forever and ever.”16 Then he adds: “May God render good reward and
return to all those who do good unto us and bless us”; and, “May God,
who has given us food for our bodies, give us also food for our souls”;
and “May God be with us always and we with Him.” The others re¬
spond, “Amen.” Also, when they ask the blessing upon the meal and
when they return thanks, they usually clasp their hands and raise them
to heaven.
Also, after the noon meal, once they have given thanks and prayed
as above, they preach, teach, or deliver their exhortations about their
doctrine to those present, if they are in a safe place where they are not
apprehensive about outsiders or servants who might not be in sympathy
with them. But more often they do their preaching at night, after dinner.
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter II) 395

For then, with their believers assembled after returning from work,
they can discourse in greater secrecy, more securely and more freely.
Now and then, at the conclusion of the preaching, they all kneel in the
position for prayer described above, sometimes putting out the light, if
there is one, in order, it is said, to avoid being observed or detected by
strangers or outsiders not in sympathy with them.
Also, they tell and instruct their believers not to betray them in any
way to chaplains, clerics, members of religious orders, or inquisitors for,
if disclosed, they would be seized because—so they tell their believers—
inquisitors and others in the Roman Church persecute them unjustly
for serving God and observing His commandments, for pursuing evan¬
gelical poverty and perfection as did Christ and the apostles. They say,
too, that they know the truth and God’s way better than do chaplains,
clerics, or members of religious orders of the Roman Church, who, out
of ignorance of the truth, persecute them. They also say that they flee
before the persecutions of their adversaries because Christ in the Gospel
told His apostles and disciples to flee from city to city when persecuted
for the name of God.17
[6] Concerning the Waldensian Manner of Teaching.—Some infor¬
mation should also briefly be given here about the manner of teaching
or preaching of these Waldensian heretics.
There are two ranks within their sect. There are, first, the Perfect,
they who are called Waldenses in the proper sense of the word.18 After
passing through a period of instruction, they have been received into
their order according to its rite, to learn how to teach others. They say
they have nothing of their own, no houses, property, or fixed abodes.
Moreover, if once they had wives, they give them up on being received
into the order. They claim to be successors to the apostles and are
teachers and confessors for the others. They go about the country
visiting their disciples and confirming them in error. Their disciples and
believers minister to their necessities. When they have come to any
place, word of their arrival is put about and many gather at their lodging
place to hear and see them. People send whatever they have in the way
of food and drink; they listen to the preaching in conventicles, held
chiefly at night while other folk sleep or rest.
At the outset, however, the Perfect do not at once reveal the secrets
of their error. At first their discourse describes what disciples of Christ
should be like, based on the words of the Gospel and of the apostles,
396 From 1216 to 1325
saying that those only may be successors of the apostles who imitate
and uphold their way of life. From this, they argue and conclude that
the pope, bishops, prelates, and clerics, who own the riches of this world
and do not imitate the sanctity of the apostles, are not true pastors and
governors of the Church of God but are rapacious and devouring wolves;
that to such Christ does not deem it fitting to entrust the Church, His
spouse, and that, therefore, they should not be obeyed. They say also that
an unclean person cannot cleanse another, nor he who is bound loose
another, nor can a criminal soothe a judge’s wrath against another
criminal, nor can one who is headed for destruction serve as another’s
guide to heaven. Thus do they disparage the clergy and prelates to
render them detestable, lest they be believed or obeyed.
So, among the first things which the Waldenses ordinarily tell and
teach their believers are some precepts which seem good and moral,
such as to practice virtues and good works, to avoid and flee from vices
—this in order to gain a more receptive audience for other subjects and
to secure a hold over their auditors. They say that one must not lie,
since, according to the Scriptures, everyone who does so kills his soul.10
Also, that one should not do unto another that which he does not wish
done to himself; that one must keep God’s commandments.20 Also, that
no one should swear in any case, since God has forbidden every oath,
saying in the Gospel: “Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is the
throne of God, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, nor by any other
creature, for man cannot make one hair white or black. But let your
speech be, ‘Yea, yea; no, no’; and that which is over and above these,
is of evil.”21 These words they deeply impress upon their believers and
admit of no interpretation of them. Also, they say and teach that to
swear is a mortal sin, always and under any circumstances whatsoever;
and if one of their believers is compelled by any secular or ecclesiastical
authority to take an oath in court, the oath-taker must afterward confess
it and receive penance as for a sin.
Also, in order to give their words greater weight among their listeners
when they preach from the Gospels, the Epistles, and the exempla and
sentences of the saints, they say by way of proof, “That is found in the
Gospel, or in the Epistle of St. Peter, or of St. Paul, or of St. James”;
or they cite a given saint or a given doctor. Moreover, they commonly
possess the Gospels and the Epistles in the vernacular and in Latin as
well, for some of them understand it. Some know how to read; at times
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter II) 397

they read from a book what they recite or preach. Sometimes they use
no book, particularly in the case of those who cannot read but have
learned the words by heart.22 Also, they preach in the homes of their
believers, as was mentioned above, but at other times while traveling,
or out in the open.
Also, they tell and teach their believers that true penance and pur¬
gatory for sin come only in this life, not in another. And so they instruct
and teach their believers to confess their sins to them. They hear their
confessions and absolve those who make them, imposing penance upon
them. This usually consists of fasts on Fridays and repetitions of the
Lord’s Prayer. They have, they say, the same sort of power from God as
had the holy apostles.
Also, according to them, souls, upon leaving bodies, pass immediately
either into paradise, if they are to be saved, or into hell, if they are to
be damned, and there is no other abode for souls after this life but
heaven or hell. Also, they say that prayers for the dead help them not
at all, inasmuch as they who are in paradise do not need them, while for
those in hell there is no release.
Also, when they hear confessions they instruct the penitents that
when they make their confession to priests, they are not to tell or dis¬
close in any way that they have confessed to Waldenses.
[7] Concerning the Artifices and Deceptions in Which They Take
Refuge When Examined.—It should be noted, moreover, that it is very
difficult to examine and question Waldenses and to get the truth from
them about their errors. This is due to the tricks and double meanings
of the words they use in their testimony, behind which they hide in
order to prevent being entrapped. Therefore, some facts should here be
set forth briefly to show their wiles and their deceptive use of words.
In the first place, then, their course of action is something like this:
When one of them has been seized and is brought up for examination,
he comes as if without a qualm, as if conscious of no wrongdoing on his
part, and as if he felt entirely safe. When asked if he knows why he has
been arrested, he replies quite calmly and with a smile, “Sir, I should be
glad to learn the reason from you.” When he is questioned about the
faith which he holds and believes, he replies, “I believe all that a good
Christian should believe.” Pressed as to what he means by “a good
Christian,” he answers, “One who believes as the Holy Church teaches
us to believe and hold.” When asked what he calls the Holy Church, he
398 From 1216 to 1325
replies, “Sir, what you say and believe to be the Holy Church.” If he is
told, “I believe the Holy Church to be the Roman Church, over which
presides our lord pope and other prelates subordinate to him,” then he
responds, “That I do believe,” meaning that he believes that I be-
lieve this.
When asked about the articles of faith which he accepts, such as the
incarnation of Christ and His resurrection and ascension, he answers
with alacrity, saying, “I firmly believe.” Asked if he believes that the
bread and wine in the Mass are, at the words of the priest and by divine
power, transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, he replies,
“In truth, should I not believe it?” If, however, the examiner says to
him, “I do not ask you if you should believe but if you do believe,” he
answers, “I believe anything you and the other good doctors command
me to believe.” He is told, “Those good doctors whom you are willing
to believe are members of your sect; if I agree with them, you believe
me and them, but otherwise you do not.” He then responds, “You your¬
self I willingly believe, if you teach me something which is good for me.”
He is told: “You consider it good for you if I instruct you as your other
masters do. But answer simply whether you believe the body of the Lord
Jesus Christ to be on the altar.” To this he replies promptly, “I believe,”
meaning that a body is there and that all bodies belong to the Lord
Jesus Christ. Then, being questioned more closely as to whether he
believes the body there to be that of the Lord, that which was born of
the Virgin, that which hung on the Cross, arose from the dead, and
ascended into heaven, he responds, “And you, sir, do you so believe?”
I tell him, “I believe it unreservedly,” and he answers, “And I believe
likewise,” meaning that he believes that I so believe.
When he is asked to reply explicitly and directly about these tricks
and many others of the same sort, he responds: “If you wish to interpret
everything I say otherwise than sensibly and simply, then I do not know
how I may answer you. I am a simple man, without learning; pray do
not trap me in my words.” He is told, “If you are a simple man,
answer and act simply without a screen of words.” To this he replies,
“Willingly.”
Thereupon, he is asked, “Will you, then, swear that you have never
learned anything contrary to the faith which we say and believe to be
true?” Somewhat perturbed, he replies, “If I must swear, I will do so
willinelv.” He is told, “It is not a question of whether you must, but
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter H) 399
of whether you are willing to swear.” He answers, “If you command me
to swear, I will swear.” I say to him: “I do not compel you to swear, for
since you believe an oath to be unlawful, you would like to cast the
blame back upon me for having forced you to swear. But if you will
swear, I will hear you.” To this he replies, “But why, then, shall I swear,
if you do not command it?” He is told, “To remove the suspicion which
exists about you, that you are reputed to be a Waldensian heretic, one
who believes and maintains that every oath is unlawful and a sin.” His
reply to this is, “What must I say when I swear?” He is told, “Take the
form of oath which you know.” He answers, “Master, I do not know
how, unless you instruct me.” Thereupon, I say to him: “Well, if I were
going to swear, raising my hand and touching the most Holy Gospels of
God, I should say, ‘I swear by these Holy Gospels of God that I have
never heard or believed anything contrary to the true faith, which the
Roman Church believes and upholds.’” Then, trembling, acting as if he
cannot pronounce the words, he will falter repeatedly in saying them,
so that either he or someone else will interrupt and interpose some
words, with the result that a straightforward form of oath is not taken
but rather a certain jumble of words, which is not juratory, but which
gives others the impression that he has taken an oath. Even if he has
repeated those words correctly throughout, he mentally means to twist
them deceitfully, to avoid using them as an oath, and so deceive those
present into thinking that he has sworn. For he either changes the form
of the oath into the form of a prayer, thus: “So help me God and these
Holy Gospels, I am not a heretic. I have neither done nor said thus
and so,” or else he only mumbles the words of the oath, with no inten¬
tion of being sworn. But when he is asked whether he has taken oath,
he answers, “Did you not hear me swear?”
Now, when they are hard pressed by the interrogation, they either
ponder carefully how by shrewdness to avoid a direct reply to questions
in which they fear a trap, or they answer to something other than the
main point. Or they say that they are simple people and do not know
how to answer wisely. Then too, when they see that those present are
inclined to sympathize with them as simple people who are being mis¬
treated and in whom no evil is found, they gain confidence, pretend to
weep, appear miserable, and fawn upon their examiners in an effort to
turn them aside from their investigation, saying: “Master, if I have done
wrong in anything, I will willingly undergo penance. Only help me to
400 From 1216 to 1325

be cleared of that infamy of which I am guiltless and with which I have

been impugned out of ill will.”
But if anyone agrees to take the oath without reservation, then he
should be told: “If you are taking the oath now in order to be released,
understand that one oath does not satisfy me, or two, or ten, or a
hundred, but as many and taken as often as I may require. For I know
that in your sect you have dispensations and arrangements for a certain
number of oaths when necessity requires, by which you may win liberty
for yourself or others. But I intend to demand oaths without number.
Furthermore, if I shall find witnesses against you to the contrary, your
oaths will have brought you no benefit. Then you will have stained your
conscience by swearing against it, and yet you will not have escaped
[sentence of death].”23
I have, moreover, seen some in such anguish as to confess their
errors as a way out of their difficulties.24 Some I have seen at such times
confess openly that if swearing once, or a given number of times and
no more, would not help them to escape, then they would refuse to
swear at all, making the assertion that every oath was unlawful and a
sin. When any one of them was asked why he had been willing to swear
if he considered it unlawful, he replied, “I wished by so doing to free
myself from death and to save my life and afterward to undergo penance
for the sin.”
[8] Concerning the Sophistries and Ambiguities of Their Statements.—
It is to be noted that the heretics, being unable to vindicate themselves
against the truth of the faith by force, by arguments, or by authorities,
in consequence immediately fall back upon verbal sophisms, ambiguities,
and evasions to avoid being entrapped in their errors. The use of am¬
biguous replies is one plain sign by which heretics can be recognized.
One kind of deception which they use is equivocation. For instance,
when asked if they believe in the sacraments of baptism, the Eucharist,
penance, matrimony, ordination, and extreme unction, they reply that
they do indeed believe, but what they mean by all this is either good
will in the heart or an inner penance. Likewise, they may take “the true
body of Christ” to mean His mystical body, the Church, or the body of
any good man, which they say belongs to Christ, as do other bodies
also. So, when asked whether they believe in the body of Christ, they
reply ambiguously or with a double meaning.
Also, they have another sort of equivocation. When asked, “Do you
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter II) 401

believe that Christ was bom, suffered, rose from the dead, and so forth?"
they reply, “Truly and firmly." By this, they understand and mean,
“That is to say, I have a true and firm belief in such of these doctrines
as are held by my sect.”
Also, there is another way of employing sophistry by including a
condition. For example, when asked, “Do you believe this or that?”
they reply, “If it please God, I truly believe this or that,” feeling assured
that it does not please God for them so to believe.
Also, another method is to meet question with question, in order to
blunt one spike on another.
Also, another method is to get the answer from the questioner in one
way or another, as when asked, “Do you believe that any oath may be
taken, or that a sentence involving bloodshed may be imposed without
sin?” the heretic responds, “And how do you and others believe?” At
the reply, “We so believe,” he answers, “And I truly believe it,” mean¬
ing that he is sure that we so believe and declare, not that he believes
that which was demanded of him.
Also, another method of dodging is to display surprise. Upon being
asked if he believes so and so, the suspect replies in surprise, as if in¬
dignant, “What else should I believe? Is not this what I ought to
believe?”
Also, another variety of their sophistries is a retort which confuses
the issue. For instance, when one is asked if he believes that everyone
who takes oath commits a sin by so doing, he replies, “He who speaks
the truth does not sin,” or he gives the answer, “He who swears does not
sin in telling the truth.” Yet he does believe that one sins by taking an
oath, although not by speaking the truth.
Also, another method is transferral, or shifting the reply from what
has been asked to something else.
Also, a question which is put to the accused by the questioner, he
shifts to others, bringing them into the discussion.
Also, another device is self-vindication; as when an individual is
asked about his faith, he excuses himself by saying, “I am a simple and
unlearned man. I am ignorant in these matters, these subtleties. You
could easily trip me up and lead me into error.”
They have a great number of other methods of deception, which one
learns better from practice than from theory.
It should also be noted that heretics sometimes pretend to be sim-
402 From 1216 to 1325
pletons or madmen, as did David in the presence of Achish.25 When they
disclose their errors, they introduce irrelevant, ridiculous, and seemingly
idiotic statements, doing so to cover up their lies and to make whatever
they say appear to be laughable. I have often seen examples of this.26
By resorting in their replies to the enumerated tricks and many others,
which it would be too tedious and distasteful to write out—and they
invent new ones daily—it is their design either so to shield themselves
that they may escape as innocent and blameless, or to weary their in¬
quisitors until they cease to pursue them, or to bring the inquisitor into
ill repute among laymen for seeming to molest simple folk without cause
and for appearing to seek an excuse for ruining them by overzealous
examination. Hence, in the following pages are briefly set forth sug¬
gestions for a method of examining and questioning those of the Wal-
densian sect and heresy who are converted and confess.
[9] Special Questions for Persons of the Waldensian Sect.—First, let
him who confesses membership in the Waldensian sect be asked whether
he has ever seen or heard any person or persons of the sect, affiliation,
or “brotherhood” of those whom we call Waldenses, or Poor of Lyons
(although among themselves they use the name of “the Brethren” or
“the Poor of Christ”).
Also, [ask] where, when, with whom he saw them and who they
were; also, whether he ever heard their preaching, teaching, admonitions,
or discourse; also, what instruction he heard from them and about their
teaching; also, what he heard them say about an oath, whether it is a
sin always and under all circumstances.
Also, [ask] about purgatory for souls after death or after this life;
also, about prayers for the dead; also, about indulgences granted or
proclaimed by the pope or prelates of the Roman Church (albeit they
do not speak indiscriminately and explicitly about these last three points
in the presence of the simpler sort among their believers, but do so only
before those who are more advanced and perfected in their secrets).
Also, [ask] whether he ate at the same table with them or saw them
eating the noon meal or at dinner; also, about the manner of blessing
the meal and returning thanks after the meal; also, whether he saw them
pray before the noon meal or after, before dinner or after, how they
prayed, how they stood at prayer; also, whether he himself prayed or
saw others praying with them, who, where, when, and what they said
in prayer; also, whether he ever confessed his sins to any one or more
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter II) 403

Waldenses and to whom; also, whether he received absolution and

penance for his sins from these persons, what the penance was, whether
*

he performed it, and what the method of absolution was; also, whether
he heard them say or did he know or believe that these persons were
not priests ordained by some bishop of the Roman Church.
Also, [ask] whether he believed at that time or has ever believed that
the confession of sins which he made to them and the absolution and
penance he received from them were of as much value to him toward
the saving of his soul as would have been confession to his own local
priest—ordained by a bishop of the Roman Church—and absolution
and penance received from him. Now, if he replies in the negative, the
question should be vigorously pressed as to why he confessed to one
whom he knew not to be a priest, unless he was convinced that it would
be of value to him. Nor should easy credence be given to a person
making such a statement.
Also, [ask] whether he confessed his sins once a year to his own
priest, during Lent or before Easter, and at that time confessed, among
other things, that he had seen Waldenses, heard their teaching, and to
them had confessed his sins. If he replies that he did not, let him be
questioned as to why he did not make this confession.27
Also, ask whether he took Communion once a year at Easter. For
the Waldenses do not receive the sacrament, nor do their believers,
except to dissemble, having no faith in the sacrifice performed by the
priests of the Roman Church; although they keep that fact most secret,
except among the Perfect [and] their believers.28
Also, [ask] whether he believed that Waldenses, or those who call
themselves the Poor of Christ, taking the appellation “Brothers,” were
good men, just and holy; whether they had and upheld a good faith and
a good sect, wherein they and those who believed like them could be
saved; whether he did so despite the fact that he had heard and knew
that they were not in agreement with the faith of adherents of the
Roman Church, and that the latter prosecuted them; also, how long he
remained of that belief; who induced him to believe thus; when he
withdrew from the aforesaid belief, and why; also, whether he gave
anything to Waldenses or received anything from them or knew of such
an act in the case of other persons; also, whether he escorted them from
place to place and whom he thus escorted; also, whether he knows any
person or persons who shelter or believe in them.
404 From 1216 to 1325
Also, [ask] whether he has at any other time been cited, summoned,
or haled before any inquisitor on a charge having to do with the Wal-
denses; whether he confessed, was absolved, received penance, and
before die court abjured the heresy and sect of the Waldenses; and
similar questions of the same nature.

[Chapter HI: Concerning the Sect of the Pseudo-A postles]

[1] The Following Treats of the Sect of the Pseudo-Apostles, Who
Call Themselves the Apostles of Christ.1—The apostate and heretical
sect of the “Apostles” originated about the year of our Lord 1260. It
was founded by a certain Gerard Segarelli of Parma, who was finally
condemned as a heresiarch by judgment of the Church in the same city
and was burned. Succeeding him as teacher and leader was one Dolcino
of Novara, bastard son of a priest, who attracted a large number of
followers to his faction. He was finally captured, together with one
Margarita, his consort in heresy and crime. Both were, by judgment of
the Church, condemned as heretics and burned, as is described in more
detail in a treatise devoted especially to this subject.2
[2] The Form of Initiation into That Sect and Order.—The form of
initiation by which these pseudo-Apostles are admitted into that sect
and order is reported in the testimony of some of their number during
trial to be this: He who is to be received into or is to profess that order
is first instructed by one or several persons of the same sect or order
about their conduct, their way of life, and the perfection of that life
which they call apostolic. Subsequently, in some church, before some
altar, or even in some public place in the presence of members of that
sect and order, and even of nonmembers, he divests himself of all his
garments, in token of abnegation, and renounces all his property to
symbolize the perfection of evangelical poverty; in his heart he vows to
God henceforth to live in evangelical poverty. And from then on he may
not accept money, possess or carry it, but must live on the charity
offered him by others out of their own free will and accord, saving
nothing for the morrow.
Also, he promises to obey no mortal man, but only God. Henceforth,
he considers himself to be in a condition of apostolic and evangelical
poverty and perfection, subject to God alone and to no man, as the
apostles were subject to no one but Christ.
[3] The Following Deals with the Errors of This Sect.—The incon-
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter HI) 405
stant adherents of the aforesaid apostolic, or rather apostate and heret¬
ical, sect at first taught their doctrines in stealth—and now they teach
even more covertly and stealthily, to whom, when, and where they may
—that all the authority once conferred upon the Roman Church by our
Lord Jesus Christ has become utterly void and has ceased to exist
because of the wickedness of prelates; also, that the Roman Church,
which popes, cardinals, prelates, secular and monastic clergy control,
is not the Church of God but a church rejected and fruitless; also, that
the Roman Church is that Babylon, the great harlot, of which John
writes in the Apocalypse8 and which has forsaken the faith of Christ;
also, that all the spiritual power which, from the beginning, Christ gave
to the Church has been transferred to the sect of those who call them¬
selves the Apostles or the Order of Apostles. This sect or order they
regard as a spiritual congregation sent by God and chosen for these
last days.
Also, [they teach] that they who call themselves Apostles of Christ,
they and none other, have the power which the blessed apostle Peter
received from God; also, that the Gerard Segarelli of Parma referred to
above was the moving spirit and founder of this sect; also, that in his
epistles Dolcino of Novara wrote of the aforesaid Gerard4 that he was
an offshoot of God, springing from the root of faith, through whom
God began to lead His Church back to the perfection, life, condition,
and poverty of the primitive Church, the condition in which Christ
committed the Church to the blessed apostle Peter.
Also, they say that only those who are called Apostles of the afore¬
said sect or congregation are the Church of God. They have that state
of perfection in which the first apostles of Christ lived. And they declare
themselves not bound to obey any man, the supreme pontiff or any
other, inasmuch as their rule, which they claim came directly from
Christ, is one of freedom and of a most perfect life.
Also, [they declare] that neither the pope nor any other man may
order them to abandon that condition or a life of such perfection; also,
that neither the pope nor anyone else can excommunicate them; also,
that anyone of whatever rank or order, be he of the monastic or the
secular clergy, may lawfully and at his pleasure transfer to their life,
condition, or order; that a man without his wife’s consent, or a wife
without her husband’s, may give up the matrimonial state to enter their
406 From 1216 to 1325
order. No prelate of the Roman Church can sever the bonds of matri¬
mony, but they have this power.
Also, [they hold] that no one of their way of life, condition, or order
may lawfully change to another order or rule without mortal sin, nor
can he yield himself in obedience to any man at all, for to do so would
be to fall from the most perfect life to one less perfect; also, that no
man can be saved or enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is of
their condition or order, for hereafter, according to them, no one who
is not included in that condition or order can be saved; also, that all
who persecute them commit sin and are in a state of damnation and
perdition.
Also, [they say] that no pope of the Roman Church can absolve
anyone, unless he be as holy as was the blessed apostle Peter, living in
complete poverty, without property of his own, and in humility, not
engaging in wars or molesting anyone, but permitting everyone to live
as he likes; also, that all the prelates of the Roman Church, the greater
as well as the less important, from the time of St. Sylvester (for since
that time they have fallen away from the mode of life of the first saints)
are liars and seducers, with the exception of Brother Peter of Murrone,
who took the name of Pope Celestine;5 also, that all monastic orders
and all the hierarchy of priests, deacons, subdeacons, and prelates are
an offense to the Catholic faith; also, that laymen should not be and
are not bound to give tithes to any priest or prelate of the Roman
Church who does not observe a state of perfection and poverty like that
of the first apostles; likewise, they say that no tithes should be given to
any but to those who are called the Apostles, who are the poor of Christ.
Also, [they believe] that any man and woman may lie naked together
in one and the same bed and lawfully touch each other in every part, and
may, without sin, caress each other. It is no sin for them to engage in
carnal intercourse with each other to put an end to temptation, if the
man is carnally stimulated. Also, that to lie with a woman and to engage
in carnal intercourse with her is a greater deed than to bring the dead
back to life. However, they do not disclose the two tenets just mentioned
indiscriminately to all, but only discuss them with one another and with
their warmer adherents.
Also, [they teach] that to live without taking a vow is a more perfect
life than to live under a vow; also, that it is no better to worship God
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter III) 407
in a consecrated church than in a shed for horses and swine, and that
Christ may be worshiped in groves as well as or better than in churches;
also, that no one should ever take an oath for any reason or under any
circumstances except in the matter of the articles of faith and God’s
commandments. Everything else may be kept secret. And, however
often men may swear to tell the truth before prelates and inquisitors,
they are not bound to answer concerning another person or to reveal
their doctrine or errors, nor are they obligated to defend the latter in
words, but they are always to keep them in their hearts. However, in the
event that they are forced to swear, through fear of death, then they are
to take the oath verbally, in words alone, but with the mental reservation
that they are bound to tell the truth in nothing but what is contained
in so many words in the articles of faith or in God’s commandments. If
they are questioned about other things, they may tell lies without sin.
In order to escape the power of the inquisitor they may deny the truth
about their sect with their tongues, provided they keep it in their hearts.
In their replies they should color the truth, deny it, gloss it over in any
way they can devise. However, in the event that it becomes impossible
to avoid death, they are openly to profess and to defend their doctrine
in every way and under all circumstances, to die patiently and un¬
flinchingly in their faith, revealing nothing at all about their associates
or believers.
The errors listed above and certain others necessarily connected with
them they hold and teach as dogma to their believers in secret but not
openly. Nor do they reveal them all at once, but gradually: now one
point, now another, now a number of them, as seems appropriate. Usu¬
ally with some show of goodness or piety to make their words the more
credible, they open their exhortations to the laity with whatever can be
said which will carry conviction about the evil life of prelates and of the
secular and regular clergy. They claim that prelates and the secular and
regular clergy persecute them, out of hatred, for speaking and teaching
the truth.
[4] Concerning the Method of Proselytizing Publicly Employed by
the Pseudo-Apostles.—This is their usual method of proselytizing and
indoctrinating at the outset, especially in their public appearances. They
make certain remarks which, on the surface, seem praiseworthy, in
order to draw the attention of their audience and win them over. Hence,
408 From 1216 to 1325
they say, “Watch and pray, for this is good for the soul”; also, they
recite the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, and the Creed. Also, as they
pass through villages, sometimes in the squares, or wherever they find
listeners, they chant, “Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand,”6 and the words to the apostles, “Behold I send you as sheep in
the midst of wolves”;7 also, “Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it
be afraid,”8 Also, they chant the Salve regina and some other hymns to
attract listeners. They adopt the outward marks of devotion to God, all
of which, at first glance, seem good and pious to their auditors. They
particularly seek to appear before men as outwardly penitent and as
leading a perfect life.
They eat in public, in the streets at some table placed there for them,
on food brought to them at the time. On rising from the table, they do
not pick up or take with them the remainder of the bread, wine, or other
things proffered to them there, but leave it where it is. This is to show
that they are the perfect poor of Christ, having, so to speak, no thought
of the morrow, no home or dwelling. Thus it is that they beg their
bread.
[5] Concerning the Procedure for Questioning and Examining the
Pseudo-Apostles.—One should be aware that it is very difficult to
examine these people and get a valid indictment against them. The
chief reason is that however often they may have taken oath before the
court to tell the truth, they nevertheless refuse to reveal their sect
openly or to confess their errors publicly or to respond directly to
questions; but covertly and with many verbal subterfuges they dodge
the issue and take refuge in lies, so that skill and diligence on the part of
the questioner are necessary in dealing with them. Therefore, a method
of questioning and examining them, such as will be presented here, one
which is from the beginning directed at their cunning, may be very
helpful to investigators in accomplishing their exposure.
After the persons summoned to the court have sworn on the Holy
Gospels of God to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth on
the subject of heresy in general and, in particular, on what pertains to
those who falsely take the name Apostles or claim to hold to their life,
sect, and practice, and also in regard to anything else on which they
may be questioned before the court, then let the following general ques¬
tions be put to them, to be followed later by special ones.
[6] General Questions for the Pseudo-Apostles.—First, then, let them
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter III) 409
be questioned about their native land and their relatives, to get informa¬
tion as to the country and people from which they came;* why and when
they left their homeland and came to these parts; with whom and how
long they dwelt in foreign lands; in what villages they stopped and with
whom they there had dealings.
Also, [ask] whether they have ever heard Gerard Segarelli of Parma
and Dolcino of Novara in Lombardy mentioned; whether they have
seen one or both of them or have talked with them; what they believe
and feel about them, their life, sect, and doctrine; whether they consider
them to have been good men and to have maintained a good sect and
to have taught a good doctrine; also, whether they have heard any
reference to the said Gerard as the original founder of the sect in ques¬
tion or to the said Dolcino as his follower; also, whether they have ever
seen any person or persons belonging to the sect of the men just men¬
tioned, the one which is called Apostles or the Order of Apostles; who
they were; whether they have had any dealings or association with such
men and, if so, with whom.
Also, [ask] about the garb they wear and its cut (which resembles
the habit of some religious order); when and where they assumed such
garb; to what order they belong; whether they profess any rule; whether
the order they uphold and the habit they wear have been approved by
the Roman Church; whether they know any others who belong to such
an order and wear such garb; also, whether they have urged or per¬
suaded any other person or persons to adopt and wear such a habit, to
adopt a similar practice and way of life, and to do other like things;
whom, how many, and how; also, about the method and procedure of
reception into the said order and the manner of assuming the habit.
Also, [inquire] about the doctrine they teach and the method of
teaching in the ceremonies one sees commonly performed, spoken, and
sung by them before the people in public squares; how they came by
these practices; who taught them; why they engage in them, inasmuch
as these things were not authorized for use by the Roman Church or by
prelates of the Church. For by these practices they mark themselves as
singular, differing in life, mode of living, and custom from the common
conduct of the faithful, whether members of religious orders or others;
also, [ask] how long since they began to engage in such practices.
Also, [ask] whether during the past year they confessed their sins to
any priest; if so, to whom; whether they partook of Communion or
410 From 1216 to 1325
received the body of Christ at Easter and, if so, where. For they them¬
selves preach that one must do penance; and for true penance, after
contrition of heart, is required oral confession of sin, made to a priest
ordained by a bishop of the Roman Church and no other. Inasmuch as
all the faithful are bound to confess their sins to their own priest once
a year and to partake of Communion at Easter, there would seem to be
a special obligation to do so laid upon those who outwardly claim and
parade such perfection of life.
Therefore, by using the general questions given above, and others
similar to them which will suggest themselves as cause and occasion
arise, it will be possible therefrom and from the replies of the heretics
to catch the latter in their double-talk and inconsistencies. This will be
particularly true if they confront a vigilant, shrewd, and zealous inter¬
rogator, for they will be unable to give reasoned replies to the inquiry.
[7] Special Questions for the Examination of Pseudo-Apostles.—
After this, let them also be questioned and examined in detail about
some of the errors of the sect in question. First, let them be tested on
the subject of the Roman Church, over which the Roman pope has
universal rule, with lord cardinals, archbishops, bishops, prelates,
clerics, and monks under him, all of whom reject, prosecute, and censure
the sect of those who are called the Order of Apostles: whether the
suspects believe the Roman Church to be good and holy; whether they
believe that it is the Church of God, having that power to bind and to
loose and to excommunicate which Christ gave and transmitted to the
blessed apostle Peter;10 whether they believe that any other sect or
congregation outside the Roman Church has that power. Also, whether
they believe and hold themselves subject to the Roman pontiff in such
manner that they are bound to obey him and can be excommunicated
by him and by other prelates of the Roman Church, even though they
may have made a vow to God alone and not to man.
Also, [inquire] whether they believe that it is lawful for them to
swear to tell the truth about the aforesaid sect or order before prelates,
or inquisitors of heretical depravity; whether they believe that after
they have taken oath they are bound to tell the truth about each and
every matter on which they are questioned and examined; whether they
consider it lawful for them to hide their sect and their errors in matters
where they diverge and differ from the Roman Church; whether they
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter III) 411
may deny the truth before the court, and under such circumstances be
free to lie without sin, with the aim of slipping out of the grasp of the
prelates or inquisitors who are conducting the examination of them.
[8] Some Precautionary Advice or Information about the Pseudo-
Apostles.—It may happen that before the court some of the sect refuse
to confess any of the errors listed above, or others of like nature, and
obstinately persist in denying them. Since they diverge from the com¬
monly approved life and manners of the faithful, however, they are
seriously suspect:11 because of the custom and way of life of their sect,
which they are seen openly to hold; because of the costume, curious and
distinctive in some respects, which they wear as though it were a habit
peculiar to some monastic order (albeit they are not of any religious
order approved by the Church; nay, rather they are disapproved, and
the wearing of unauthorized garb suggestive of any religious order is
forbidden and prohibited, lest one who is not a monk should from his
habit appear to be one); because of the character of the doctrine which
they hold and observe, which was handed down to them by Gerard and
Dolcino and their followers, who call themselves Apostles; because of
their private gatherings and conventicles, at which they have frequently
been surprised in secret meetings; and finally because of the fact that a
considerable number from that sect and order have been clearly dis¬
covered by judicial examination to be heretics and have been condemned
and burned.12 Therefore such individuals as are seriously suspect should
be kept in prison until they have confessed the truth.
Take care, however, not to keep several of them together in one
prison; but hold each one separately, so that they are unable to talk to
each other; thus the truth is better wrested from them. For, as has
already been said, in a group they strengthen their obstinacy against
confessing the truth. I have seen and had experience with one who, after
being held in prison and examined frequently for almost two years, was
still quibbling with the truth and would not confess. Finally, he spoke
out and revealed it, repented, and was imprisoned as a penitent heretic
to perform his penance.13

[Chapter IV: Concerning the Sect of the Beguins]

[1] The Following Deals with the Sect of Those Who Are Commonly
Called Beguins or Beguines.—The sect of Beguins, who call themselves
412 From 1216 to 1325

the Poor Brethren and who say that they keep and profess the third rule
of St. Francis, appeared in recent times in the provinces of Provence
and Narbonne, and in certain parts of the province of Toulouse, which
has from early times been included in the province of Narbonne.1 They
began to be recognized and exposed in their erroneous opinions in the
year of our Lord 1315, or a little before or after that time, although
many persons earlier had commonly thought them to be suspect. There¬
after, year by year, in the provinces of Narbonne and Toulouse and in
Catalonia, many were seized, held, and their errors unmasked. Many of
both sexes were found to be heretics, were so adjudged, and were
burned, from the year of our Lord 1317 onward,2 particularly in Nar¬
bonne, in Beziers, in the diocese of Agde, in Lovede, around Lunel in
the diocese of Maguelonne, in Carcassonne, and in Toulouse, where
three foreigners8 were involved.
[2] Concerning the Errors or Erroneous Opinions of the Beguins of
Recent Times: Their Origin.—Now Beguins (for by this name are com¬
monly called those who refer to themselves as the Poor Brethren of
Penitence of the third order of St. Francis and who wear a garb of
coarse brown or greyish brown woolen cloth, with or without a cape)
of both sexes in recent times were discovered in the year of our Lord
1317, and year by year thereafter, in various places in the province of
Narbonne and in some parts of the province of Toulouse, and they con¬
fessed before the court to having and clinging to many errors and wrong
opinions. They set themselves up against the Roman Church and the
Apostolic See, against the primacy of that see, and against the apostolic
power of the lord pope and of the prelates of the Roman Church.
By lawful inquisition and through the depositions and confessions of
a number of them, recorded before the court, as well as through dec¬
larations by many of them, in and for which they have chosen to die by
burning rather than to recant as is canonically required, the source of
their errors and pernicious opinions has been discovered. They have
culled these, at least in part, from the books and pamphlets of Brother
Peter John Olivi,4 who was born at S6rignan, near Beziers—that is to
say, from his commentary on the Apocalypse,5 which they have both in
Latin and in vernacular translation, and also from some treatises which
the Beguins say and believe that he wrote: one dealing with poverty,
another with mendicancy, and a third with dispensations. [They took
them] also from certain other writings they attribute to him, all of which
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 413

they have in vernacular translations. They read, believe in, and treat
these as veritable Scriptures.
They say and believe that this Brother Peter John received his knowl¬
edge by revelation from God, especially in his commentary or exposition
on the Apocalypse. In part, they also assembled the errors and opinions
mentioned from the teaching attributed to the same Brother Peter John,
teaching or instruction which they say he gave to his associates and to
Beguins of his day. They recite to one another these maxims and sayings
of his, handed down from the first devotees to their successors, and pass
them on to one another in turn, and regard them as veritable and
genuine documents. In part, too, these Beguins of both sexes were
taught many things by the associates and followers of the aforesaid
Brother Peter John. Some things the Beguins themselves have added,
like a people blinded, led astray by their own imagination, made masters
of error by ceasing to be disciples of truth. In the works mentioned
above or in some other writings of the associates and followers of the
aforesaid Brother Peter John many other passages are found, said or
written in general terms; these the Beguins apply to themselves and
expound in accordance with their own wicked concepts. They accept
and explain them in support of their own position and against those
whom they call their persecutors. Thus they fall from one error into
many others, going from bad to worse.
Indeed, it should be known that when the above-mentioned com¬
mentary on the Apocalypse was carefully examined by eight masters of
theology at Avignon in the year of our Lord 1319, they found numerous
articles which they judged heretical and many others which contained
intolerable falsity or error, unfounded opinions, or unreliable predictions
of future events. The masters drew up this judgment concerning the
foregoing in legal form and attested it as a public record with their
seals;6 one who has seen it, read it through, and held it in his hands
testifies to its truth.
Furthermore, one should observe and note that among these Beguins
some are found who know, uphold, and believe in many or all of the
errors described below; they have become, as it were, steeped and
hardened in them. There are others who are able to discuss only a few
of them and yet are sometimes found to be more stubborn in their con¬
victions and beliefs than their equally misguided fellows. Then, there is
a third sort, who have heard or remembered only a little and who yield
414 From 1216 to 1325
to right reason and sane counsel. Some there are, to be sure, who
obstinately persist and will not retract, who elect rather to die than to
abjure, for by so doing they claim to defend evangelical truth, the life
of Christ, and evangelical and apostolic poverty. Yet one also finds
some among them reluctant to be involved in errors or wrong opinions
and who are on their guard against them.
[3] The Following Deals with Their Manner and Way of Life.—The i

live in villages and small towns, where some of them live

together in little dwellings which, in the phraseology they affect, they
call “houses of poverty.” Both the occupants and those who dwell in
their own private homes quite frequently gather together in these houses
with associates and friends- of the Beguins on feast days and Sundays.
There they read or listen to the reading in the vernacular from the
above-mentioned pamphlets or tracts, out of which they imbide poison,
although certain other things are also read there—the commandments,
the articles of faith, legends of the saints, and a summa on vices and
virtues.7 Thus the school of the devil, with its appearance of good,
seems, in monkey fashion, to imitate the school of Christ in some ways.
But in Holy Church the commandments of God and the articles of faith
must be preached and expounded publicly, and not secretly, by rectors
and pastors of the Church—not by simple laymen, but by doctors and
preachers of the word of God.
It should also be noted that there are some among them who beg
publicly from door to door, for they claim to have embraced evangelical
poverty. There are others who do not beg publicly but do perform some
manual labor, thus earning money and leading a life of poverty. Further¬
more, some of the more simple among them, of both sexes, do not
clearly grasp the articles and errors described below but are in a state
of ignorance. Yet among them are those who generally have a firm
conviction of the injustice and unwarranted character of the condemna¬
tions of Beguins which have occurred since the year of our Lord 1318
by judgment of prelates and inquisitors of heretical depravity in several
localities in the province of Narbonne (namely, in Narbonne, Capestang,
and Beziers, in the vicinity of Lodeve, in the diocese of Agde, and
around Lunel in the diocese of Maguelonne), in Marseilles, and in
Catalonia. They revere as just and good those persons who were con¬
demned as heretics.
[4] Outward Signs by Which They May Also Be Recognized It
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 415
should also be noted that, in keeping with the remark of Augustine in
his Contra Faustum, Book XIX: “Men cannot be held together in any
bond of religon, whether true or false, unless they are bound by some
common performance of visible signs or sacraments,”8 these Beguins
have certain patterns of overt behavior, in speech and other actions, by
which one may distinguish them from other people.
Their method of address or of returning a salutation is this: As they
approach or enter a house, or meet on a journey or on the street, they
say, “Blessed be Jesus Christ,” or “Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ.”
Also, at prayer, in church or elsewhere, they sit bending over, head
covered, usually turning their face toward an opposite wall or some
such spot, or toward the ground; rarely are they seen to kneel with
clasped hands like other men. Also, at the midday meal, after the food
has been blessed, those who know it repeat the Gloria in excelsis Deo
on their knees, while the others listen. At the evening meal, also, those
who know it recite the Salve regina.
[5] The Following Deals with the Erroneous, Schismatic, Presumptu¬
ous, or False Beliefs of the Said Beguins and Their Followers.—In the
first place, those who are commonly called Beguins (although they
themselves say they are the Poor Brethren of Penitence of the third
order of St. Francis) say and affirm that they believe and maintain that
the Lord Jesus Christ, while He was man, and His apostles also, owned
nothing personally or even in common, for they were the perfect poor
in this world. They say that this is perfect evangelical poverty, which is
to own nothing personally or in common. Also, they say that to own
anything in common detracts from the perfection of evangelical poverty;
also, that the apostles could not have owned anything personally or in
common without sin or without diminishing their perfection. Also, they
declare it heretical to believe and assert anything contrary to the
foregoing.9
Also, they say that the rule of St. Francis is the very life of Jesus
Christ as Christ observed it in this world and which He handed on to
His apostles, charging them to observe it. Also, that which St. Francis
transmitted to the brethren of his order in his rule, relative to evangelical
poverty, requires that those who profess this rule may own nothing
personally or in common beyond “poor usage” (usus pauper), that
which is necessary to life, while always tasting the destitution of poverty
and having nothing superfluous.10
416 From 1216 to 1325
Also, they say that the Blessed Francis was, after Christ and His
mother (and, some add, after the apostles), the chief and foremost
observer of the evangelical life and rule, and its restorer in that sixth
era of the Church in which they say we now are.11 Also, they hold that
this said rule of St. Francis is the Gospel of Christ or is one and the
same with the Gospel of Christ. Also, they say that those who impugn
or in any respect contradict the rule of St. Francis, which they call the
Gospel, impugn and contradict the Gospel of Christ and in consequence
err and become heretics if they persist in their error.
Also, just as they say that since neither the pope nor any other can
change anything in the Gospel of Christ, neither add to nor take from
it, so no one can change anything in the aforesaid rule of St. Francis,
neither add to nor subtract from it as far as concerns the vows and
evangelical counsels or precepts contained therein. Also, and in con¬
sequence, they say that the pope cannot annul the evangelical rule of
St. Francis, or change it, or remove from amongst the other orders the
order of St. Francis which they call the evangelical order. They also
make the same claim in every respect regarding the third order of St.
Francis and his third rule.
Also, they say that no pope, nor even a general council, can annul
or decree anything contrary to any one of the acts which have been
confirmed, decreed, or prescribed by a previous pope or a preceding
general council. Hence, they commonly maintain that the two rules of
St. Francis mentioned above (some of them even include any of the
other rules, confirmed by Roman pontiffs), cannot be annulled by any
succeeding pope or even by a general council.
Also, they say that if the pope should alter any part of the rule of
St. Francis, should add or suppress anything, above all in respect of the
vow of poverty, or if he should annul the said rule, he would thereby
be acting against the Gospel of Christ. They contend that no Friar
Minor or any other person would be obliged to obey him in such an
event, no matter how often he should command it, not even under pain
of excommunication for disobedience, because such excommunication
would be unjust and would bind no one.
Also, they claim that the pope cannot grant dispensation to anyone
from vows made under the rule of St. Francis, to wit, those of chastity,
poverty, and obedience. Also, that he cannot give dispensation to any
one from a vow of poverty made to God, even should that vow have
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 417
been simple and not solemn,12 because a person who has taken a vow
of poverty is irrevocably bound to it. An individual receiving such a
dispensation would fall from a greater and higher degree of virtue and
perfection to a lesser and lower one; and the power of the pope, in their
opinion, serves only constructive, not destructive ends.
Also, they say that the pope cannot issue a constitution or a decretal
granting a dispensation or giving to Friars Minor the right to keep grain
and wine in common granaries or cellars for use or necessary provision
at a future time, because this would be contrary to the evangelical rule
of St. Francis and, in consequence, to the Gospel of Christ. Also, they
say that our Lord Pope John XXII acted against the Gospel of Christ
when he issued a certain constitution beginning Quorundam,13 wherein
he grants Friars Minor permission or dispensation to gather grain and
wine in granaries and cellars for future use, at the discretion of the
prelates of their order. And they say that by this he fell into heresy, and
that, so long as he persists in this, he has lost the power to bind or loose,
as well as other pontifical powers; prelates installed by him since he
issued the said constitution have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction or power.
They say, also, that all prelates and others who agreed or who know¬
ingly shall agree with the lord pope in the issuance of the said constitu¬
tion have for this reason become heretics, if stubbornly they persist
therein, and they have lost all ecclesiastical power or jurisdiction. Also,
they say that the Friars Minor who were responsible for the issuance of
the said constitution, or those who consent to it and accept it and take
advantage of it, have become heretics by so doing.
Also, they say that the pope cannot, under God, permit any Friar
Minor, even by papal license, to transfer to another religious brother¬
hood or order in which the Friar Minor himself as well as the other
brethren of the same order may possess wealth in common. For, they
say, this would be to fall from a greater and higher condition of perfec¬
tion or virtue to a lesser and lower one, which would be to pull down,
not to build up, while the power of the pope was given only for con¬
structive, not for destructive use. Also, they say that if any Friar Minor
should ever go over to another religious brotherhood or order, he is
bound, notwithstanding any papal permission, always to observe the
vow of poverty taken by him earlier under the rule of St. Francis. Thus,
he can never own anything personally or in common, beyond bare
necessity.
418 From 1216 to 1325

Also, they say that if any Friar Minor is made a bishop, a cardinal,
or even pope, he is always bound to keep the vow of poverty taken
earlier under the rule of St. Francis. The intent is that he shall give his
full attention to the administration and care of spiritual matters, but all
temporal affairs are to be directed and managed by suitable deputies.
Also, they say that the pope has no right to grant a dispensation
affecting the size or cost of the habits of the Friars Minor in such a way
as to sanction any superfluity in violation of the rule of St. Francis.
Friars Minor should not obey him in this or in anything else which runs
counter to the perfection of the rule of St. Francis.
Also, they say that there is no more perfect state in the Church of
God than that of the order of Friars Minor who have vowed and prom¬
ised evangelical poverty. The status of prelates does not attain its
perfection, except in the case of those who are chosen from that order,
wherein they have promised evangelical poverty and have bound them¬
selves to observe it forever. They attain the same perfection if they
keep their earlier vow.
Also, they say that those four Friars Minor who, in the year of our
Lord 1318, were condemned as heretics in Marseilles by an inquisitor
of heretical depravity who was also a Friar Minor, were unjustly con¬
demned for defending the truth of the evangelical rule. For, they say,
those men wished to observe and hold to the purity, truth, and poverty
of the rule of St. Francis and were unwilling to consent to the relaxation
of that rule or to accept a dispensation which the above-mentioned lord
pope issued concerning these matters, or to obey him and others in this
respect. For this reason, they say, those men were not heretics but
Catholics, glorious martyrs whose prayers and good offices with God
they entreat. Also, many of them declare their conviction that these four
men have no less merit in God’s eyes than the martyr saints, Lawrence
and Vincent. Also, some of them say that in those four Friars Minor,
Christ was again crucified spiritually, as on four arms of the Cross, and
that in them the poverty of Christ and His life were condemned. Also,
they say that if the lord pope ordered, or if he consented, then or now,
to the condemnation of the four friars as heretics by an inquisitor, he
himself is by this fact a heretic, the neatest of all, because as head of
the Church his duty is to defend evangelical perfection. Consequently,
they say, he lost the papal power. They do not accept him as pope. They
hold that no obedience at all is owed him by the faithful, and from that
moment on, the papal office has been vacant.
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 419
Also, they say that [unjustly treated] were all those persons com¬
monly called Beguins (but who refer to themselves as Poor Brethren of
Penitence of the third order of St. Francis) who, during the past three
years—that is, since the year of our Lord 1318—have been condemned
as heretics by judgment of prelates and inquisitors of heretical depravity
in the province of Narbonne (namely, in Narbonne, Capestang, and
Beziers, in the vicinity of Lodeve, in the diocese of Agde, and around
Lunel in the diocese of Maguelonne). These condemned persons believed
that the four Friars Minor just mentioned were blessed martyrs, with
whom they shared the same beliefs, tenets, and sentiments about evan¬
gelical poverty and the power of the pope—that is, that he lost it and
that he became a heretic, as did by their actions the prelates and in¬
quisitors who persecuted the said friars. They believed that the teaching
of Brother Peter John Olivi was altogether true and catholic and that
the carnal church, that is, the Roman Church, was the great harlot of
Babylon, destined to be destroyed and cast down, as was in times past
the synagogue of the Jews at the beginning of the primitive Church.
Such Beguins, I say, although they believed and defended all these
things, were, from the viewpoint of their fellow Beguins, unjustly con-
demned for defending the truth; they were not heretics but Catholics
and their fellows say that in the eyes of God they are glorious
martyrs.
Also, they say that the Church of God will in time recognize as holy
%

martyrs these four Friars Minor and those Beguins who were condemned
as heretics, and that a solemn festival will be proclaimed for them in
the Church, as for the great martyrs. Also, they say that the prelates
and inquisitors who judged and condemned them as heretics, together
with all those who knowingly consented or do now consent to their
condemnation, have by this act become heretics, if they persist. In
consequence these persons have lost the ecclesiastical power to bind and
loose and to administer the sacraments of the Church; and faithful
Christians owe them no obedience.
Also, they say that none, not one, of those who fell into heresy
according to their account as just given, are the Church or are part of
the Church of God or are numbered among the faithful. They are out¬
side the Church of God if they persist in their attitude. Also, not in but
outside the Church of God are all those who are reluctant to or who
refuse to believe those tenets upheld by those four Friars Minor and by
the Beguins who were condemned as heretics. All those who do not
420 From 1216 to 1325

believe that the men condemned as heretics were glorious martyrs, all
such, they say, are no part of the Church of God but are outside it.
Also, they say that all those persons who hold and believe in the
matters aforesaid in the fashion of the Beguins, the Poor Brethren of the
third order, are the Church of God and live within the Church of God.
With them are included others of the faithful who are not part of the
third order—be they secular or regular clergy, or laymen—who believe
and hold in these matters as do the Beguins themselves.
Also, many Beguins of both sexes, together with their believers,
secretly gathered up to preserve as relics the charred bones of the
persons who were burned after their condemnation as heretics. And out
of devotion and reverence they kiss and venerate them as one does in
the veneration of other saints. This was discovered and attested by
inquisition and in the confessions and depositions received by the court
from certain Beguins who had such objects with them and who had seen
and known others who had them or once possessed them. I myself,
while conducting inquiries about such relics among them, have seen and
touched them, finding visible proof of their existence.14
Also, some of the Beguins have recorded in writing the names of
those condemned persons, with the days and months when, as they
claim, they suffered martyrdom, just as the Church of God is ac¬
customed to do in the case of saints and true martyrs. They have in¬
cluded their names in their calendars and invoke them in their litanies.
Also, they say that the pope cannot grant anyone a dispensation from
the vow of virginity or chastity, even though that vow may have been
simple and not a solemn one, no matter how great a benefit to the
community might ensue from such a dispensation—such as the re¬
establishment of peace in some province or kingdom, or the conversion
of a people to the faith of Christ—because the person receiving the
dispensation would fall from a greater and higher degree of perfection
to a lesser one. Also in this respect, they add that even if all women had
died except one who had vowed to God virginity and chastity, and even
though the human race would fail unless she should marry, the pope
could not grant her dispensation, nor would she be bound to obey him
if he should order her to marry. Moreover, if she did obey, she would
commit mortal sin. If her refusal brought excommunication by the pope,
the excommunication would be unjust and not binding. If the refusal
cost her life, she would be a martyr. Also, some of them further assert
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 421
that if a person who had taken a vow of chastity should marry, even
with papal dispensation, the marriage would not be genuine or legitimate
and the children bom from it would be not legitimate but adulterine.
Also, they say that prelates and members of religious orders who
wear unnecessary and costly apparel act contrary to the perfection of
the Gospel, against the precepts of Christ, and in obedience to the
command of Antichrist. They, and with them members of the clergy of
pompous mien, are of the family of Antichrist.
Also, they say that they, the Beguins, or the Poor of the third order,
are not required to take oath before prelates and inquisitors in regard
to anything but the faith and the articles of faith, even though they have
been brought to answer charges before them concerning the sect and
heresy of the Beguins. Also, they add that prelates and inquisitors
should question them about nothing other than the articles of faith, the
commandments, and the sacraments. If questioned about other things,
they have no obligation to answer, because, they say, they are laymen
and simple folk. As a matter of fact, they are astute, shrewd, and crafty.
Also, they say that they are not obliged to take oath or to expose or
reveal under oath their believers, accomplices, or associates, for this,
they assert, would run counter to love of one’s neighbor and would
tend to injure him. Also, they say that if they are excommunicated for
their refusal, when ordered, to swear simply and to speak the absolute
truth before the court, beyond the subject of the articles of faith, the
commandments, or the sacraments, or because they refuse to testify
against others and refuse to expose their associates, such excommunica¬
tion is unjust and does not bind them, and in their hearts they consider
it of no moment.
Also, they say that the pope cannot, under God, prevent Beguins from
begging their livelihood, even by sentence of excommunication, on the
grounds that they might be able to work and earn a suitable living by
their trade and that they do not labor in the Gospel, since it is not fit¬
ting for them to teach or preach. For they say that their perfection
would thereby be lessened, and so they are not bound to obey the pope
in this nor would such a sentence bind them. Should they be condemned
to death for this, they say they would be glorious martyrs.
Also, they say and affirm that all the teachings and writings of
Brother Peter John Olivi of the order of Friars Minor are true and
catholic. They believe and declare that they were revealed to him by
422 From 1216 to 1325

the Lord and that the said Brother Peter John himself disclosed this to
his familiars during his lifetime. Also, they commonly refer to Brother
Peter John as a holy father who has not been canonized. Also, he is,
they say, so great a doctor that there has been none greater since the
apostles and evangelists. Some add that there has been none so great in
sanctity and teaching. Also, some of them say that there has been no
doctor in the Church of God, with the exception of St. Paul and the
said Brother Peter John, whose opinions have not in some point been
refuted by the Church.15 But the whole doctrine of St. Paul and of
Brother Peter John must be kept in its entirety by the Church, dimin¬
ished by not a single letter.
Also, some of them say that Brother Peter John held and spoke the
truth in saying and affirming that Christ was still alive when He hung
on the Cross after His side was pierced by the lance and when he de¬
clared the truth to be that Christ’s soul was still in His body but, since
He was totally exhausted, He appeared to the onlookers to be dead.
John the Evangelist, therefore, said He was dead at the time because He
seemed to be dead.16 The evangelist Matthew, however, wrote that
Christ was living, as in truth He was. The Church expunged this from
the Gospel of Matthew lest it seem to contradict the Gospel of John.
Also, they say and explain that the said Brother Peter John was in
spirit that angel of whom it is written in the tenth chapter of the Apoc¬
alypse that his “face was as the sun,”17 and that he had a book open in
his hand. For, they declare, to him alone of all the learned doctors was
made plain the truth of Christ and the understanding of the book of
the Apocalypse. It is thus that they understand and explain what he
wrote on the above-mentioned passage of the Apocalypse in his com¬
mentary, which they have in vernacular translation.
Also, they say that the writings and teachings of the aforesaid Brother
Peter John are more necessary to the Church of God for this last day
than any other writings of any doctors or saints whatsoever, apart from
those of the apostles and evangelists. For, they claim, he discloses more
plainly and intelligibly than the others the malice of Antichrist and his
disciples, namely, the Pharisees, who are, in their opinion, the prelates,
monks, and friars of the present day.
Also, they say that if God had not provided for His Church through
the said Brother Peter John or some other like him, the whole world
would be blind and heretical.
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 423
Also, they say that those who do not accept the teachings and writ¬
ings of Brother Peter John are blind in that they do not feel or see the
truth of Christ. Those who reject and condemn his doctrine are heretics.18
Also, they say that Brother Peter John is a lamp and a light sent by
God into the world, and those who do not see that light walk in darkness.
Also, they say that if the pope should condem the teaching or writings
of Brother Peter John, he would in this be a heretic, for he would be
condemning the life and teaching of Christ.
Also, they say that if the pope should condemn the said teaching and
writings, they would not consider them condemned. If he should ex¬
communicate them on this account, they would not hold themselves to
be excommunicate; nor would they obey him or give up the books in
question.
Also, these Beguins have the books of Brother Peter John in trans¬
lation from the Latin into the vernacular, made by some of his followers.
These include the commentary on the Apocalypse, a short treatise on
poverty, another rather brief one on mendicancy, another on the seven
evil spirits, and certain other pieces. To them all they attach the name
of Brother Peter John, ascribing them to him whether he wrote them
himself or some other person compiled them out of his teaching and its
4

tradition, for they have the same flavor and agree in dogma. They read
these books in the vernacular to themselves, their associates and friends,
in their assemblies and their little dwellings, which they call “houses of
poverty,” in the phraseology which they affect. From the pernicious
teachings of these works they derive instruction for themselves and,
when they can, for others.19
Also, thus informed, or rather deformed, by the doctrine which they
draw from the commentary on the Apocalypse by the said Peter John,
they say that the carnal Church, by which they mean the Roman Church
(not merely Rome herself, but the whole area of the Roman jurisdiction),
is that Babylon, the great harlot, of which John speaks in the Apoc¬
alypse.20 Of her they set forth and explain the evils one reads about in
that book, to wit, that she is drunk with the blood of the martyrs of
Jesus Christ—the blood, they explain, of those four Friars Minor who
were condemned and burned at Marseilles as heretics, the blood of the
Beguins of the third order who in years past were condemned as
heretics in the province of Narbonne, as we have recounted more fully
above. These, they assert, were martyrs of Jesus Christ.
424 From 1216 to 1325

Also, they contend that the Church herself has given to drink of the
wine of her fornication to all the rulers of the earth, the kings and
princes of Christendom, and the great prelates who put on the pomp of
the world.
Also, they distinguish as it were two churches: the carnal Church,
.'i

which is the Roman Church, with its reprobate multitude, and the
spiritual Church, composed of people whom they call spiritual and
evangelical, who follow the life of Christ and the apostles. The latter,
they claim, is their Church. But some of them say there is only one, the
one they call carnal—the great harlot in so far as it touches the repro¬
bate, but spiritual and virginal, without stain or blemish, in respect of
the elect, whom they call the evangelicals, meaning themselves, who
claim to observe evangelical poverty, defend it, and suffer for it.
Also, they teach that the carnal Church, which is the Roman Church,
will be destroyed before the preaching of the Antichrist, by wars waged
against it by Frederick, the reigning king of Sicily, and his allies, called
the ten kings, who are prefigured by the ten horns of the beast described
in the Apocalypse. They put about some other tales on this subject,
as false as they are foolish, having to do with the struggle between King
Frederick and the king of France and King Robert [of Naples].21
Also, they teach that at the end of the sixth era of the Church, the
era in which they say we now are, which began with St. Francis, the
carnal Church, Babylon, the great harlot, shall be rejected by Christ,
just as the synagogue of the Jews was rejected for crucifying Christ.
For the carnal Church crucifies and persecutes the life of Christ in those
brethren whom they call the Poor and the Spirituals of the order of St.
Francis. They are speaking here of both the first and the third order,
with reference to their persecution as described above, which took place
in the provinces of Provence and Narbonne.
Also, they teach that, just as Christ chose from the synagogue of the
Jews, after it had been rejected, a few poor men through whom the
primitive Church of Christ was founded in the first era of the Church,
so, after the rejection and destruction of the carnal Church of Rome in
the sixth or present era, there will remain a few chosen men, spiritual,
poor, and evangelical. The majority of these, they say, will be drawn
from both the orders of St. Francis, the first and the third, and through
them will be founded the spiritual Church, which will be humble and
good, in the seventh and last era of the Church, which begins with the
death of Antichrist.
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 425
Also, they teach that all religious brotherhoods or orders will be de¬
stroyed by the persecution of Antichrist, except the order of St. Francis.
This they divide into three groups: One is the general body of the order;
the second consists of those in Italy who are called Fraticelli;22 the
third is composed of both the brethren whom they call the Spirituals,
who preserve the spiritual purity of the rule of St. Francis, and the
brethren of the third order who adhere to their teachings.2* The first
two groups will be destroyed, they say, but the third will remain, en¬
during until the end of the world, for this, they say, was God’s promise
to St. Francis.
Also, some of them teach that upon those men, the spiritual and
evangelical elect through whom the spiritual Holy Church will be
founded in the seventh and last era, the Holy Spirit will be poured out
in abundance greater than, or at least equal to, its outpouring upon the
apostles, Christ’s disciples, on the day of Pentecost in the primitive
Church. They say that it will descend upon them like a fiery flame of
a furnace and, as they anticipate, not only will their souls be filled
with the Holy Spirit, but also will they feel its dwelling within their
bodies.
Also, they teach that the Antichrist is dual; that is, there is one who
is spiritual or mystical, and another, the real, greater Antichrist. The
first prepares the way for the second. They say, too, that the first Anti¬
christ is that pope24 under whom will occur and, in their opinion, is now
occurring the persecution and condemnation of their sect.
Also, they fix the time within which the greater Antichrist will come,
begin to preach, and run his course. This Antichrist, they say, has
already been born and will run his course, according to some of them,
in the year of our Lord 1325. Others say it will be in the year 1330;
while still others put it later, in the year 1335.
Also, they teach that those Spirituals whom they call evangelical
(concerning whom we have written above), in whom and through whom
the Church will be established, will preach to the twelve tribes of Israel
after the death of Antichrist and will convert twelve thousand of each
tribe. All these assembled together will number one hundred and forty-
four thousand. This will be the army marked by the angel bearing the
sign of the living God. The angel, they explain, will be the Blessed
Francis, who bore the stigmata of the wounds of Christ. Forthwith, this
army, so marked, will fight with Antichrist and will be slain by him
before the advent of Elijah and Enoch.2*
426 From 1216 to 1325

Also, drawing further upon their imaginations, they teach that the
destruction of the carnal Church will occur amid mighty wars and great
destruction of Christian peoples. Large numbers of men will fall in the
war they wage in defense of the carnal Church.28 Then, when almost all
the men are dead, the surviving Christian women will embrace trees
out of love and longing for men. On this subject they tell a number of
other fabulous tales, which they read in the vernacular translation of
the above-mentioned commentary.
Also, they say that after the destruction of the carnal Church, Sar¬
acens will come to seize the Christians’ land. They will invade this
region of the kingdom of France, that is, Narbonne. They will abuse
Christian women, taking many of them captive to misuse them. This,
they claim, was revealed by God to Brother Peter John in Narbonne.
Also, they say that at the time of the persecutions, which are the
work of Antichrist, and of the aforesaid wars, carnal Christians will be
so afflicted that in despair they will cry that if Christ were God He
would not permit Christians to suffer so many and such great evils. In
their despair they will renounce their faith and die. But God will hide
the aforesaid spiritual elect, lest they be found by Antichrist and his
minions. Then the Church will be reduced to the same number of
persons as founded the primitive Church; scarcely twelve shall survive.
In them the Church will be established and upon them the Holy Spirit
will be poured in equal or greater abundance than He came upon the
apostles in the primitive Church, as is recounted above.
Also, they say that after the death of Antichrist, the said Spirituals
will convert the whole world to the faith of Christ and the whole world
will be good and merciful, so that there will be no malice or sin in the
people of that era, with the possible exception of venial sin in some.
Everything will be for use in common and there will be no one to offend
another or tempt him to sin, for great love will there be among them.
There will then be one flock and one shepherd. This state and condition
of men will last, some of them think, for a hundred years. Then, as love
wanes, malice will creep in little by little and gradually spread so far
that Christ will be forced by the excesses of wickedness, as it were, to
come to the universal judgment of all.
Also, they violently and shamefully inveigh against our lord the pope,
vicar of Jesus Christ. Like madmen and schismatics, they call him the
mystical Antichrist, the precursor who prepares the way for the greater
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 427
Antichrist. Also, they call him a rapacious wolf whom the faithful
should avoid; a prophet, one-eyed or blind; Caiaphas, the high priest
who condemned Christ; or Herod, who mocked Christ and made sport
of Him. He, they say, condemns the life of Christ and mocks Him in
His poor. Also, they liken him to the “boar out of the wood,” and the
“singular wild beast,”27 tearing down and destroying the walls or strong¬
holds of the Church of God so that therein may enter dogs and swine,
which is to say, the men who tear and trample the perfection of the
evangelical life. They aver that he has done more evil in the Church
than all the heretics who preceded him, because in the day of heretics
the Church held her position, but now in his time she seems not to be
the Church of God but the synagogue of the devil. They say that in his
time the carnal Church will be destroyed. He himself with two cardinals
will flee into hiding, where he will die of woe and grief.
These are the mad and heretical teachings of the pernicious sect of
the Beguins. All these and many others, which it would take too long to
describe in detail, we have heard from their own mouths while we were
conducting investigations among them and against them. Much of this
we have read and noted in their pamphlets; it is to be found in more
detail and at greater length in their depositions before the court and in
the judicial proceedings connected therewith. But to bring the material
more readily to hand, a compendious statement has here been presented.
The first inquisition was undertaken against these Beguins in the prov¬
ince of Narbonne, during the year of our Lord 1318, and in the years
following in Narbonne,28 and at Pamiers in the province of Toulouse in
the year of our Lord 1321,29 and thereafter as occasion arose.
[6] The Following Deals with the Method of Examining and Ques¬
tioning These Beguins.—Now it should be carefully noted that among
these Beguins some have studied and know more, others less, about the
erroneous articles and errors listed above, in proportion to the extent
of their instruction and training in them. For in such matters it is their
custom always to proceed step by step from bad to worse, disclosing
everything not at once but by degrees. Consequently, in conducting an
investigation the skillful inquisitor will be able to put questions on all
errors or on one or some few only, passing over the others as may seem
expedient and as the character and condition of the persons to be
examined and the nature of the inquisitorial office may require. Hence,
the questions below have been drawn up for use according to the nature
428 From 1216 to 1325

of the errors in which the individuals concerned are found to be wanting

or to go astray. Of course, not all the questions are necessarily to be put
to each and every one, but those which, in the judgment of the investi¬
gator, seem suitable, to the end that the form and direction of interro¬
gation of different persons about different matters may be readily
adapted to the peculiar characteristics of each. Indeed, by questions
deftly put and by the answers returned, truth is more accurately and
easily discovered, guile is thwarted more quickly, in those who do not
reply clearly and to the point but cast about for shelter in words and
opportunities for evasion, in order to avoid replying to the questions.
All of this is learned more fully by experience.
[7] Special Questions for the Present-Day Beguins3°—First, let the
person under examination be asked when, where, and by what minister
of what order he was received into the order and to whom he made
profession; also, whether at the time of his reception he was examined
on his faith by the bishop of the place or someone acting for him, since
the Lord Pope John XXII has decreed and ordained that examination
or reception of any other kind is not valid but altogether null and void.
Also, [ask] where and with whom he has lived since then; also, if the
person under examination has been not a Beguin but a great believer
and friend of Beguins, suspected of their errors, let him be asked when
he began to believe them and to be intimately conversant with them.
Also, let the person under examination be asked whether he has
heard any persons teaching and affirming that Christ and His apostles
possessed nothing, either personally or in common; also, whether he
has heard it said that to hold or believe the contrary makes one a
heretic; also, whether he has heard it taught that to own anything in
common diminishes the perfection of evangelical poverty; also, whether
he has heard it said or taught, and whether he himself believed or now
believes, that the rule of St. Francis is one and the same with the Gospel
of Christ or is the Gospel of Christ; also, whether he believed or now
believes that just as the pope cannot change anything in the Gospel,
can neither add to nor subtract from it, he cannot change anything in
the rule of St. Francis, can neither add to nor subtract therefrom, in
respect of the vows, evangelical counsels, or precepts contained in
that rule.
Also, [inquire] whether he believed or now believes, or has heard it
taught, that the pope cannot suppress the order of Friars Minor founded
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 429
under the first rule, nor even their third order, removing either or both
of them from the community of the others, as has sometimes happened
with some other religious communities; also, whether he has heard it
taught, whether he has believed or now believes, that the pope cannot
issue a constitution or decretal granting the Friars Minor dispensation
or concession which permits them to accumulate grain and wine in a
common store for their use and provision at a future time, at the dis¬
cretion of prelates of their order.
Also, [ask] if he has heard it said, has believed or now believes, that
by issuing a certain constitution, beginning Quorundam, wherein he is
said to have granted the Friars Minor a dispensation or concession to
possess grain and wine in common under the circumstances given
above, our Lord Pope John XXII acted contrary to evangelical poverty
or against the Gospel of Christ. Also, [ask] whether he has heard it
taught, has believed or now believes, that no Friar Minor should obey
the same lord pope in the matter of the above dispensation or of any
other change made in the rule, even if the pope himself should com¬
mand in virtue of obedience and under pain of excommunication that
all friars should accept and observe the change.
Also, [inquire] whether he has heard it said, has believed or now
believes, that our Lord Pope John XXII, by issuing the said constitution
or dispensation, became a heretic and lost the papal power to bind and
loose; also, whether he has heard it said, has believed or now believes,
that the pope cannot grant permission to any Friar Minor to transfer to
another religious brotherhood or order where he might own property in
common like other brothers of that order, but that one is forever bound
to keep the vow of poverty taken under the rule of St. Francis and so,
in consequence, can never own anything personally or in common; also,
whether he has heard it said, has believed or now believes, that a Friar
Minor who becomes bishop or cardinal is bound always to observe the
vow of poverty which he took under the rule of St. Francis.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard, has believed or now believes, that
the pope cannot grant dispensation from the vow of chastity or virginity
to any person under any circumstance, even though that vow may have
been simple and not a solemn one, and no matter how great the good
to the community which might follow from such a dispensation; and
whether he believes that if an individual should marry under papal dis¬
pensation the marriage would not be valid or legal.
430 From 1216 to 1325

Also, [inquire] whether he has heard it said, has believed or now

believes, that the pope cannot grant dispensation to anyone from the
simple vow of poverty.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard or known that some Friars Minor
were condemned as heretics at Marseilles by an inquisitor of heretical
depravity from the same order; whether he has heard or known exactly
what the reasons were for their condemnation; also, whether he has
believed or now believes that they were and are Catholics and holy
martyrs; whether he has known or heard of any other persons who so
regarded them. Also, [ask] whether he has heard it said or has believed
that the ones who condemned them as heretics acted unjustly, thereby
becoming heretics themselves as well as persecutors of evangelical
poverty; also, if he has heard it said, has believed or now believes, that
the pope became a heretic and lost his papal power by consenting to
the condemnation of those four Friars Minor as heretics at Marseilles.
Also, [inquire] whether he has heard or known that some Beguins or
Beguines, who call themselves the Poor of the third order of St. Francis,
were condemned in recent years by judgment of prelates and inquisitors
of heretical depravity in the province of Narbonne or elsewhere; also,
in what places or villages of the province such condemnation took place;
also, how many Beguins and Beguines he has heard mentioned by name
as persons condemned as heretics; also, whether he heard or knew the
grounds on which they were condemned; also, if he believed or now
believes that the said Beguins who were condemned as heretics were
and are Catholics and holy martyrs, suffering death to defend the truth;
whether he knows or has heard of any persons who believe, think, or
say that the condemned heretics were holy martyrs or that they have
attained salvation; also, whether he believed or now believes that those
who condemned them as heretics themselves became heretics by so
doing.
Also, [inquire] whether he has had in his possessions any bones, ashes,
or any other objects belonging to the aforesaid persons who had been
condemned or burned, which he keeps as relics out of devotion and
reverence for their persons; also, from whom he got those relics, what
he did with them, and whether he kissed them: also, whether he knows
of any other persons who have had or kept any such bones or ashes
as relics.
Also, [ask] if he believed or now believes that our lord pope became
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 431
a heretic and lost the papal power by consenting to the condemnation
of the aforesaid Beguins as heretics; also, whether he believed or now
believes that these Beguins who were condemned as heretics and others
who believed as they did are the Church of God or are of the Church
of God, while those who condemned them or consented to their con¬
demnation are outside the Church of God; also, whether he has known
or heard that some persons have noted and recorded the dates of death
of those condemned persons in calendars, or specifically mentioned
them in litanies in the way that the deaths of other saints are recorded
in litanies, and that their names are invoked in the litanies and their
good offices besought.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard among the Beguins the teaching
that prelates, members of religious orders, or clerics, who have super¬
fluous and costly clothing, are acting contrary to the Gospel of Christ
and in accord with the command of Antichrist, or that they are of the
family of Antichrist, or that the poverty of Christ is reflected with
peculiar luster in the rags and patches of the poor Beguins; also, whether
he has heard men teach among the Beguins that the Church of God and
the faith of Christ have survived in modern times only in the tiny com¬
pany of poor Beguins of the third order and in the few other people
who persecute neither them nor the evangelical rule of poverty.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard it said that for the Beguins them¬
selves the greater perfection lies in a life of begging or mendicancy,
rather than in labor or the work of their hands, and that the pope
cannot forbid them this. Nor may he enforce by excommunication a
ban on public begging, when they may be able without begging to live
decently by their own labor, on the ground that they do not labor in
preaching the Gospel, nor is it fitting that they should preach.
Also, in regard to the teaching or writing of Brother Peter John Olivi
of the order of Friars Minor, [ask] whether it has been read to him in
the vernacular or whether he himself has read it, alone or to others;
where, how often, to whom; also, what books or parts of books of this
same Brother John he has heard or read: Was it from the commentary
on the Apocalypse, from the treatise on poverty, from that on mendi¬
cancy, or from the author’s other works? Also, [ask] whether he thinks
or believes the writing and teaching of Brother Peter John to be true
and Catholic.
Also, [inquire] whether he has heard Beguins or some of them say
432 From 1216 to 1325

that the writing and teaching of Brother Peter John is more necessary
to the Church of God than that of any other doctor or saint whatever,
except the apostles and evangelists, or that the man himself was the
greatest doctor in the Church of God after the apostles and evangelists;
also, whether he has heard it said or explained among the Beguins that
Brother Peter John was, in a spiritual sense, that angel of whom it is
written in the Apocalypse that his face was like the sun and that he had
a book open in his hand because, as the Beguins say, the truth of Christ
was particularly clear to him, as was the understanding of the book of
the Apocalypse, as shown in his commentary.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard it said among the Beguins that the
pope cannot condemn the teaching or writings of Brother Peter John,
for the reason which they give, that they were revelations to him from
God, and if the pope condemned them he would condemn the life of
Christ; also, that the Beguins themselves would not respect this con¬
demnation or rejection, nor would they obey the pope in this, and they
did not think that they could on this account be excommunicated by
him; also, what the person under investigation believes or has believed,
among the items given above, about the teaching or writings of the said
Brother Peter John.
Also, [ask] what he has heard the Beguins repeat on the subject of
the prophecy and teaching of Brother Peter John during his lifetime
about the condition of the Roman Church and other matters; also,
what he has read or heard read in the aforesaid commentary as far as
he can recall the reading or hearing of it.
Also, [ask] whether he has read or heard anyone read from the same
commentary that there are seven eras of the Church and that at the
end of the sixth era, which the commentary declares began with St.
Francis and his rule, the era of the Roman Church must come to an
end, just as that of the synagogue of the Jews ended at the coming of
Christ; also, whether at the beginning of the seventh era, which they
believe will commence with the death of Antichrist, another new Church
must be founded to succeed the first Church, since the first, carnal
Church, which is the Roman Church, will have been rejected and
condemned.
%

Also, [ask] whether he has heard it put forth and explained in the
same commentary that the Roman Church is that Babylon, the great
harlot, described in the Apocalypse, that she is the city of the devil, and
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 433
that at the end she is to be condemned and rejected as was the syna¬
gogue of the Jews; also, whether he has heard anyone read or explain
that the primacy of the carnal Church, that is, the Church of Rome,
will be transferred to a new Jerusalem, by which they mean that there
will be a certain new Church of the future at the end of the sixth and
beginning of the seventh era; also, whether he has heard anyone read
and explain that the sixth era, the one beginning with the day and rule
of St. Francis, will more perfectly observe the evangelical rule of
poverty and the virtue of patience than any other era of times past.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard it explained that the rule of St.
Francis is truly and essentially that evangelical life which Christ himself
observed and imposed upon His apostles, and that the pope has no
authority over it; also, whether he has heard it stated that the rule of
St. Francis has been wickedly attacked and condemned by the Church
4

of the carnal and the proud, as Christ was condemned by the synagogue
of the Jews.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard it stated or explained in the said
commentary that the Blessed Francis was, after Christ and His mother,
the chief observer of the evangelical life and rule; also, that he was,
under Christ, the first and principal founder, initiator, and exemplar of
the sixth era of the Church and of the evangelical rule; also, that the
constitution or rule of St. Francis would, in imitation of Christ, be
crucified toward the end of the sixth era; also, that then the Blessed
Francis would arise bodily in glory, with the result that just as in his
life and in the stigmata of the Cross he came singularly to resemble
Christ, so will he become like unto Him in bodily resurrection.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard anyone explain that the persecution
or punishment now being inflicted upon those who remain tenaciously
true to the aforesaid sect of the Begums is like another crucifixion of
the life of Christ and another piercing of His hands, His feet, and
His side.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard them tell of a wild boar, a mystical
Antichrist, like Caiaphas the high priest condemning Christ or like
Herod mocking Christ; also, of a wild boar, a great Antichrist, com¬
parable to Nero and Simon Magus.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard the explanation that the evangelical
condition is that of those poor men who, in their view, are persecuted
and punished by the Roman Church because they refuse obedience to
434 From 1216 to 1325

the apostolic power and rebel against the interpretations of and state¬
ments about the rule of St. Francis issued by the Apostolic See.
Also, [ask] whether he has heard the statement that in the thirteenth
century after the passion and resurrection of Christ, the Saracens and
other infidels will be converted at the cost of much martyrdom among
the Friars Minor; also, that in the thirteenth century after the birth of
Christ, St. Francis and his evangelical order appeared; also, that in the
thirteenth century after the death and ascension of Christ that evan¬
gelical order will be exalted on the Cross and its glory will take dominion
over the whole earth.
Also, [ask whether he has heard it taught] that at the time of the
attack and condemnation launched against the evangelical life and rule
which, in their opinion, is to occur under the mystical Antichrist,
who is, they say, the pope, and which will be consummated under the
great Antichrist—Christ will descend in spirit, together with His servant
Francis and the evangelical band of his disciples, against all the errors
and evils of the world. Also, that just as the whole world first received
the Gospel through the apostolic order, so the whole world will be
taught and converted through the evangelical order of St. Francis, be¬
tween the time of the mystical Antichrist and that of the great Anti¬
christ. Also, [ask whether he has heard it said that] by the beast “coming
up out of the earth,” referred to in the Apocalypse, is meant the
pseudopope with his pseudoprophets, who will not directly of them¬
selves effect the bodily destruction of men, just as the beast “coming up
out of the bottomless pit” is the symbol of the worldly laymen who will
slay the saints, by whom the Beguins mean themselves; also, that the
sixth head of the dragon mentioned in the Apocalypse signifies the
mystical Antichrist, the pope, while the seventh head represents the
great Antichrist, meaning the royal monarch; also, whether he has heard
the Beguins say or teach anything about the era of the Antichrist and
the year of his advent.31
Also, [ask] what he has heard them say about the many other attacks
on the situation of the Roman Church and her prelates, her monks and
clerics, and about the many rash predictions of the future with which
the said commentary is filled.
4

[8] Advice and Recommendations for Countering the Cunning and

Malice of Those Who, When Summoned, Are Unwilling to Confess
the Truth before the Court.—Since many of the Beguins (who call
JJ. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 435
themselves Poor Brethren of Penitence of the third order of St. Francis)
wish to conceal and disguise their errors and erroneous opinions by sly
cunning, they refuse to confess and, throughout the whole course of the
inquiry, refuse the oath to tell the truth about themselves and their
associates, living and dead, even though it is customarily and legally
required of one called before the court. Some of them, to be sure, may
take the oath but are nonetheless not at all willing to swear simply and
absolutely. They insist upon expressing protest, conditions, and reserva¬
tions, to the effect that they do not mean to swear simply or bind them¬
selves by oath to say anything which they believe offensive to God or
injurious or detrimental to a neighbor.
They assert, further, their belief that it offends God when the Roman
Church, through its prelates and inquisitors, persecutes, reproaches,
and condemns the Beguins and their sect. For their argument is that
they observe and uphold the life of Christ and of evangelical poverty, at
least in the fashion in which they conceive and expound it, as indicated
above both in the articles of their faith and in the process of their
interrogation. Also, they think it an offense against God, they say, to
abjure those articles which we inquisitors and prelates adjudge to be
erroneous or to contain error and heresy, but which they, on the con¬
trary, say are not erroneous and contain no heresy but are in accord
with evangelical truth. Thus they call good evil, and evil good, and
turn light into darkness, darkness into light.
Also, they declare their belief that it would redound to the detriment
and injury of their neighbors if they should expose or reveal their
associates and believers, because they believe the latter would suffer
persecution by inquisitors as a result and would be mistreated. Herein,
like a people blinded, they do not see that, in the first place, God is not
offended when error is disclosed and truth discovered and when anyone
is turned from the devious path of error to be brought back into the
straight path of truth, forsaking and abjuring his error. Again, in the
second place, it does not redound to the detriment of one’s neighbors
but works to their good when sinners are led back to the path and light
of truth, when they are no more corrupted and do not, by their pesti¬
lential contagion, destroy multitudes and, like blind leaders, drag them
into the ditch.32
Therefore, in dealing with and opposing the malice and cunning of
such persons, take care in the investigation by all means to force from
436 From 1216 to 1325

them an oath quite simply and absolutely to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, with no condition or reservation, about them¬
selves and any of their associates and also about their believers, fautors,
receivers, and defenders. They are to use words in the sense intended
by the investigator, without any ruse or artifice, whether confessing
9

about themselves or others, whether replying to questions or making

affirmations or denials, throughout the whole course of the inquiry. If
they do not, they will by that very fact be guilty of perjury and incur
the penalty therefor.
Consequently, one should be on guard against accepting from them
an oath taken under some condition, reservation, or with the protest
referred to above. On the other hand, one should explain and make
clear to them that it is not an offense against God, nor is God offended,
as they believe and state, when a judge seeks the truth in order to dis¬
cover error and heresy. In this matter, the determinant is not their false
notion but the judgment of the interrogator.
Also, when those persons who have been infected by any errors or
implicated in them are discovered, it is not a betrayal of a neighbor or
a cause of wrong or injury to him, as they say, but it works for his good
and for the salvation of his soul. For this is done for the sake of cor¬
recting them, converting them from their errors to the way of truth,
and reforming them. Thus they are prevented from becoming more
corrupt themselves and from infecting and corrupting others by their
errors.
But if persons under examination shall obstinately refuse to swear
without the aforesaid condition and reservation—that is, in the event
that persons enjoined by the court do not swear definitely to speak the
whole truth and nothing else—let a written sentence of excommunication
be pronounced against him who, when thus enjoined to take the oath,
shall refuse. This is to be done unless he takes a definite oath im¬
mediately or at least by the hour or date which the presiding judge
may, in his leniency and moderation, have peremptorily33 designated.
For, if one has been ordered to take a definite and simple oath, he may
lawfully be compelled to do so at once, without delay. The sentence of
excommunication, once decided, drawn up, and pronounced, will be
attached in writing to the record of the case.
Now, if a person incurs sentence of excommunication and endures
it pertinaciously for several days without yielding, let him again be
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 437

summoned to court and asked whether he considers himself to be ex¬

communicated and bound by the aforesaid sentence. If he replies that
he does not consider himself excommunicated and bound by the sen¬
tence, then by that very fact it will be evident that he is one who despises
the keys of the Church. That is one article of error and heresy; anyone
who obstinately persists therein is to be judged a heretic. Both the
question and the answer on this point shall be made part of the record,
and further action shall be taken against such a person according to
law, the canonical warning and peremptory urging to retreat from the
aforesaid error and heresy and abjure it. Otherwise, from that time on
he will be adjudged a heretic and condemned, and as such will be
abandoned to the judgment of the secular court.
Take note, also, that in order to prove the wickedness of such a
person, so that his error may be quite clear, and to justify the proceed¬
ings against him, another new sentence of excommunication may be
issued against him in writing, as against one who is contumacious in a
matter of the faith. The justification here is his obstinate refusal to take
a simple and definite oath to answer about matters pertaining to the
faith and to abjure manifest error and heresy, wherein he obviously
appears no less to be practicing evasion than he who, cited in other
circumstances, contumaciously absents himself. Let the accused be no¬
tified that sentence is passed, and let the communication be put in
writing. If such a one, who has been excommunicated for a matter of
the faith, shall with stubborn mind endure the sentence of excommuni¬
cation for more than a year, then he should be and may lawfully be
condemned as a heretic.
Moreover, one should bear in mind that witnesses may be heard in
the case against such an individual, if there be any against him, or
even, in order to elicit the truth, he may be constrained in various ways:
limited in food, held in prison, or chained; or he may even be put to
the question34 on the recommendation of qualified persons, as the
nature of the case and the status of the individual involved may
require... .S5
[11] Advice against a Ruse or Trick of Certain Persons Who Wish
to Reply Not Clearly and Lucidly but Obscurely and Ambiguously.—
In order to veil the truth, to shield and conceal their associates, and to
keep their error and baseness from being discovered, there are some
Beguins, as wicked as they are crafty, who make their replies to inter-
438 From 1216 to 1325
rogation so ambiguous, so obscure, in such general terms, and with
such confusion, that one cannot deduce the plain truth from their
answers. Thus, when one inquires about their belief on a certain article
or articles set forth, they respond in every instance, “I believe in this
matter just what and in just the way that the Holy Church of God
believes.” They otherwise refuse to declare themselves explicitly or to
give a different answer, no matter how often they are enjoined to do so.
In this event, in order to brush aside the deceit which they use, or
rather abuse, in the words “Church of God,” they should be diligently
and searchingly questioned and examined as to what they mean by the
Church of God, what the Church of God may be in their opinion. For
they say “Church of God” misleadingly, as appears in the articles of
their errors.36 They say that they themselves and their associates and
believers, are the Church of God or part of the Church of God. But
they consider persons who hold beliefs contrary to theirs and who
persecute them not to be the Church of God or any part of it.
On this account, the inquisitor must use diligence and ingenuity.
These persons can and should, by sentence of excommunication as
described the preceding section, be forced or coerced into clear
replies and into making explicit definition of what they mean by their
generalized, equivocal, or confused responses.
[12] Concerning a Little Book on the Passing of Brother Peter John
Olivi, Which Beguin Men and Women Revere and Repeatedly Read or
Hear Read in Their Meetings. In passing, we should note here that
the Beguins, men and women, read or have read to them repeatedly in
their meetings and hear with pleasure a very small volume which they
have, entitled Transitum sancti Patris [the passing of the holy father].37
Therein one finds inscribed:
“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, blessed without end. In the
year of the Incarnation 1298,38 on Wednesday, the fourteenth of March,
at the sixth hour, in the city of Narbonne, there passed from this world
the most holy father and most distinguished doctor Brother Peter John
Olivi, in the fiftieth year of his life, the thirty-eighth of his membership
in the order of Friars Minor. He was born in the village of Serignan,
which lies a thousand paces (per miliare) from the sea, in the diocese of
Beziers. His most holy body rests in sanctity in the center of the choir
in the church of the Friars Minor in Narbonne.
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter IV) 439
“Far better I deem it in holy silence to marvel at the growing perfec¬
tion of his conversion and to venerate the most glorious end of his life
as a friar than to expose them to the abuses and yappings of snarling
dogs. I believe, however, that I must not pass over one thing. This
venerable father, at the moment of his passing, after he had received
extreme unction, in the presence of the Friars Minor of the convent at
Narbonne declared that he had received all his knowledge by revelation
from God and that at Paris, in the cathedral at the third hour, our Lord
Jesus Christ had suddenly illumined him.”
Such is the content of that little volume which the Beguin men and
women read with great devotion or hear read in their meetings, out of
reverence for him. They believe it to be entirely true. But his body was
exhumed, carried away, and hidden in the year of our Lord 1318. There
is much doubt as to where it may be, and different tales are told by
different people about it.39

[Chapter V: Concerning the Perfidy of the Jews]

[1] The Following Concerns the Perfidy of the Jews against the
Christian Faith.—Perfidious Jews secretly attempt, whenever and when¬
ever possible, to pervert Christians and to attract them to Jewish
perfidy. They do this particularly in the case of persons who once were
Jews but have been converted and have accepted the baptism and faith
of Christ, especially those in whom they have a personal interest or
who are related to them by marriage or blood.
Against Christians who have converted or reverted to the cult of the
Jews, if they have confessed the fact the decision has been made to
proceed as against heretics, even though they who reverted had re¬
ceived baptism as infants or through fear of death—provided that they
were not absolutely and definitely coerced.1 Against the fautors, shel¬
tered, or protectors of such persons, the procedure is the same as for
the fautors, shelterers, and protectors of heretics.2
[2] Concerning the Procedure or Ritual Which the Jews Follow in
Re-Judaizing Converts*—This is the rite or procedure of the Jews for
re-Judaizing baptized converts who return to the vomit of Judaism. He
who is to be re-Judaized is questioned or examined by one of the Jews
present as to whether he wishes to accept tymla4—the Hebrew term for
taking a bath, either by washing or by bathing in running water—in
440 From 1216 to 1325

order to become a Jew: He replies “Yes,” whereupon the presiding Jew

says to him Baaltussuna,5 which means “You return from the state
of sin.”
After this, the convert is completely undressed and sometimes is
bathed in warm water. Then the Jews rub him very vigorously with
sand over the whole body, but especially on the forehead, breast, and
hands—on the very places, that is, which were anointed by the holy
chrism in baptism. Then afterward all the nails of his hands and feet are
filed to the quick.
Also, they shave his head and then place him in the water of a flow¬
ing stream and have him immerse his head in the water three times;
after that immersion they pray thus, “Blessed be God, God the ruler of
ages, who hath bidden us to be sanctified in that water, that bath”
(which in Hebrew is called tymla).
After this act, he is brought out of the water and clothed in a new
shirt and new breeches; all the Jews present kiss him; and he receives
a name, usually that which he had prior to baptism.
Also, he who has thus been re-Judaized is required to confess the
law of Moses, promising to keep and observe it, to live henceforth in
accordance with it; also that he will renounce the Christian baptism and
faith, and henceforth will not hold to nor heed it. Thus he promises to
observe the Law and to abjure the baptism and faith of Christ.
Then, finally, they give him a certificate or testimonial document
addressed to all other Jews, so that they will accept him, have confidence
in him, and treat him well. Thenceforth, he lives and conducts himself
as a Jew and attends the assembly or synagogue of the Jews.
[3] Special Questions for Use with Jews and the Re-Judaized.*—In
the first place, let the Jew who is to be examined be asked his name
and surname; also, where he was born and where he has lived; also,
about his parents; whether they were and still are Jews; their names,
and where they live; also, whether he has brothers and sisters; their
names and surnames; where they live; whether any of them have been
baptized; when and where; also, whether he himself is a Jew or a
baptized Christian.
Also, [ask] which law is the better; under which does he wish to live
and die; also, whether Jews are bound to keep an oath sworn on the
law of Moses, by the word of God and the scroll of the Law; also, by
what penalty are the perjured punished.
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter V) 441
Also, [ask] whether he has a wife and children; how many of the
latter; also, whether his wife and children were baptized; also, whether
he himself has been baptized; when and where; who stood godfather for
him at the sacred font; what name was given him in baptism; also,
whether others were baptized with him; who their godfathers were;7
what names were given them; also, whether they have reverted to
Judaism; when and where; whether they have wives; also, when he
himself was re-Judaized; where; by whom; who was re-Judaized with
him; who were present; also, about the method and rite of being re-
Judaized.
Also, [ask] how many years he remained or stayed firm in Christianity
and in his baptismal faith; whether during that time he ever confessed
his sins sacramentally to any priest; whether he partook of Communion
as other Christians do; also, if at that time he believed in the faith of
Christ and the sacraments of the Church.
Also, [ask] whether he married a Christian; also, whether he had
children by her and whether they were baptized; also, whether he has
learned the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, and the Apostles’ Creed.
Also, [ask] who induced him to revert to Judaism; also, whether he
himself has induced any Christians to be Judaized or any convert to
be re-Judaized; also, whether he knows any Judaizing or Judaized
Christian, any baptized apostate, or any re-Judaized person; where
[they live]; also, whether he has the certificate of his re-Judaization.
Also, [ask] in what manner the Jews pray against Gentiles (goyim)
and against the clergy of the Roman Church.
Also, [ask] how the Jews circumcise Christian boys in a manner
different from their own. Here it should be noted that Jews circumcise
their own boys in one way and Christians, whether boys or adults, in
another. For in circumcising Christian adults or children, they cut their
foreskin only halfway around, not full circle as they do to their Jewish
boys.8
Also, they give a certificate of their Judaization to Christians when
they become Jews, which must always be carried with them; otherwise,
Jews will not drink or eat with them. It must contain the name of each
of the masters who revoked their christening.
[4] Concerning the Intolerable Blasphemy of the Jews against Christ,
His Faith, and the Christian People.—It should be noted, moreover,
that among the prayers which Jews repeat, teach, and have in written
442 From 1216 to 1325

form there is, among others, the following (translated from the Hebrew):
“Blessed be Thou, O God, our Lord, king eternal, who hast not made
me a Christian or a Gentile.”9 Also: “Let there be no hope for the lost,
the converts to the Christian faith, for any heretics or unbelievers, for
accusers or hypocrites, that is, any traitors. Let the moment come, that
is, the moment in which they are destroyed. Let all the enemies of Thy
people Israel be swiftly slain. Let the kingdom of iniquity be suddenly
frenzied, be smashed and scattered, so that in our time it topples sud¬
denly and swiftly, and falls ever lower. Blessed be Thou, O God, who
crushest Thine enemies and bringest low the wicked.”10
All these utterances are in Hebrew, and throughout they refer by
circumlocution to the dominion of the Christian people, whom they
regard as heretics, unbelievers, their enemies and persecutors.
Also, in another of their prayers, they say: “Over us let God be
exalted above all to magnify the first creator, who made us not as the
peoples of the world, or the Gentiles, and cast not our lot with them,
nor our destiny with all the congregations of the peoples who, bowing
down before vanity of vanities, worship a god powerless to give help
or salvation. Wherefore we trust in Thee, O God, our Lord, to conquer
swiftly and speedily in the beauty of Thy strength, to overthrow, to cast
out the graven things, that is, die images which earthly Christians adore
in honor of Christ. Let the idols be destroyed—and they will be de¬
stroyed—to make ready the world for the reign of the Almighty. Let
all the sons of flesh call upon Thy name as they turn again to Thee; let
all the wicked ones of earth call upon Thee and let those who live upon
the earth or in the world to come know Thee. To Thee let every knee
be bent and let all tongues unite in Thy presence and before Thy face,
our God. Let them bow and fall prostrate, let them give glory to Thy
name most dear. Do Thou bring all of them again under the yoke of
Thy kingdom and speedily reign over them in eternal dominion, for
Thine is the kingdom forever and ever. Thou shalt reign in glory as is
recorded in Thy law: ‘God shall reign eternally, forever and ever.’”11
The preceding was taken from the Hebrew.
Note, moreover, that in the foregoing words the Jews mean to invoke
harm to Christians. Although they do not expressly use the word
“Christians” but employ circumlocution, nonetheless they very clearly
refer to and have the Christian people in mind.
Note carefully, too, that the imprecations and curses mentioned
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter V) 443
above which the Jews utter against the Christian people, are contained
in a certain book which the Jews of France call maazor,1! which means
a collection of prayers, and the Jews of Provence call typhilloth, mean-
ing a book of prayers.
Also, in the prayer which they recite three times a day are many
curses and imprecations against Christians and against the Roman faith,
which they call a kingdom of wickedness doomed to destruction. And
they pray that God will destroy it and all Christians. Although they do
not explicitly use the word Christians, all the terms imply that meaning
and they themselves understand and mean it so, as, for example, in the
word minim, which signifies heretics.
Also, during the Day of Atonement, in September, they use a special
prayer which they say against all their enemies, calling it cematha,13
which means anathema or separation or curse. In that prayer, by circum¬
locution they call Christ a false son of a harlot, and the Blessed Virgin
Mary a woman addicted to wantonness and excess, which is an abom¬
inable thing to say or even to think. They revile them both and the
Roman faith and all who share it or believe in it.
Also, there is a certain book by an author named Solomon14 which
they entitle “Gloss on the Text of the Law.” Ail Jews put special con¬
fidence and faith in it and are particularly guided by its statements. In
numerous passages of that book occur the false, erroneous, and abusive
words, ideas, and opinions of the condemned Talmud.15 The Jews
observe, cherish, and teach these glosses, even though they have been
condemned equally with the Talmud and are expressly directed against
Christ, who, they say, was not the Christ in any way nor the Messiah
promised in the Law.
Also, that book gives the name of heretics and infidels to all those
who follow and keep the way and faith of Jesus Christ; that prayer,
referred to above, which the Jews recite three times daily, was com¬
posed with them in mind.
Also, a certain book, which the Jews call “Glosses of Moses of
Egypt,”16 to which its author gave the title “Explanation and Restoration
of the Law,” contains objectionable and false statements from the
Talmud; it also contains many errors and blasphemies against the
Christian faith, especially in naming as heretics (in Hebrew minim) all
those who follow the way and faith of Christ. Also, that book declares
that Jesus Christ sinned against God and the Law, that He sinned worse
444 From 1216 to 1325

than Mohammed, and that Jesus caused the greater part of the world
to put its trust in the error of worshiping a God other than the one God,
and of destroying the Law which God gave. There are many other
blasphemies against Christ in this book.
Also, in another book called by the Jews “The Gloss of David the
Spaniard,”17 which is a gloss on the Psalms, are found many attacks on
Christ, on Christians, and on those who embrace the Christian faith.

[Chapter VI: Concerning Sorcerers, Diviners, and Those Who In¬

voke Demons]
[1] The Following Concerns Sorcerers, Diviners, and Those Who
Invoke Demons.—In numerous and various aspects the deadly contagion
and error of sorceries, divination, and invocation of demons occurs in
divers countries and regions in association with various concoctions and
false contrivances of the vanity of superstitious men, who turn their
attention to spirits of evil and the teachings of demons.1
[2] Questions for Sorcerers, Diviners, and Those Who Invoke
Demons.—The sorcerer, diviner, or one who invokes demons, who is
subjected to examination should be asked about the kind and number
of sorceries, divinations, and invocations he knows and from whom he
learned them.2
Also, when one probes deeply into details, one must evaluate the
quality and status of persons, for the same interrogatory may not be
used in one and the same way for all; men are questioned in one
fashion and women in another. Questions may be formulated on the
following topics:
What they know or have learned or have done in respect of children
or infants on whom a spell has been cast or from whom a spell is to be
lifted; also, lost or damned souls; also, thieves subject to imprisonment;
also, peace or discord between husbands and wives; also, enabling the
barren to conceive.
Also, [ask about] substances they give to be eaten—hair, claws, and
other things; also, the situation of souls of the dead; also, forecasts of
future events; also, the fairy women, whom they call the “good folk,”
and who, they say, roam about at night; also, making incantations or
conjuring with incantations using fruits, herbs, girdles (corrigia), and
other materials.
Also, [ask] whom he taught to make incantations or to conjure by
55. Gui on Heresies (Chapter V) 445

using incantations, and from whom he learned or heard such incanta¬

tions and spells.
Also, [ask about] curing diseases by conjurations or incantations;
also, the method of gathering herbs, in a kneeling position, with face to
the east, while repeating the Lord’s Prayer; also, prescribing pilgrimages,
masses, offerings of candles, and almsgiving; also, the method for the
discovery of thefts or the disclosure of secrets.
Also, one should inquire particularly as to what they know about any
sort of superstitious, irreverent, or wrongful treatment of the sacraments
of the Church, particularly the sacrament of the body of Christ; also,
the use of divine worship and holy places;8 also, about the Host which
is saved, or the chrism or holy oil stolen from a church.
Also, [ask about] wax or other images which have been baptized;
how they are baptized, and its results.4
Also, [ask] about the images of lead which sorcerers make, the
method of fabrication and the use.
Also, [ask] from whom he learned or heard such practices; also, how
long it has been since he began to employ such; also, what persons and
how many have come to him seeking advice, particularly within the
year; also, whether he has ever before been forbidden to engage in such
practices, and by whom; whether he abjured them and promised never
to do or make use of such things; also, whether after abjuration and
promise he relapsed; also, whether he believed in the truth of what he
taught others; also, what goods, gifts, or payments he received and
retained for such practices.
BLANK PAGE
 Catharist Literature of the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

56. Bogomil Literature Adopted by the Cathars

Two works which the Cathars of Western Europe took over from the
Bogomils are presented here as the first of a group of translations of Catharist
literature. The Vision of Isaiah (part A), is an apocryphal work of great
antiquity, probably composed about the end of the first century under
Gnostic influence. Before a.d 300 it had been joined to two other independ¬
ently written items, The Martyrdom of Isaiah and The Testament of
Hezekiah: the first, by a Jew or a Jewish Christian; the second, Christian in
origin with traces of Gnosticism. The composite treatise circulated under
the title, The Ascension of Isaiah.* The Vision of Isaiah, which formed its
second half, may also have had an independent tradition; at any rate, it was
found as a separate work among Bogomils in the twelfth century.2 About
the beginning of the thirteenth century it had reached Western Europe in
Latin translation.3 Durand of Huesca mentions it in a polemic against the
Albigenses in 1222 or 1223,4 as do James Capelli and Moneta of Cremona
about 1240.5 The story of Isaiah’s vision was still being repeated by Albigen-
sian heresiarchs in the fourteenth century. To show the persistence of the
story, one of the later versions is translated here as an addendum to the
translation of The Vision itself.
The Vision of Isaiah recounts that the spirit of the prophet was conducted
by an angelic guide through the air of this world up through the firmament,
where forces of Satan and of God were locked in battle; then up through
seven heavens, where angels, their glory increasing with each heaven, sang
praises to God. In the seventh heaven Isaiah saw not only angels but the
righteous dead, who alone were able to behold the ineffable glory of the
Father. There he heard the Father command His Son to descend to the earth
and into hell to judge the rulers and angels or the world. Isaiah saw the
Son on earth, saw Him seized and hung on the tree by the prince of this
world, saw Him descend to hell to lay it waste—this part of the vision was
omitted in the Bogomil version—and then, having despoiled the prince of
death, arise on the third day. When Isaiah had beheld the ascent of the Son
of God again to heaven, he was told that what he had beheld no other eyes
of flesh might see and that, when the time came, he and other righteous men
would also receive their robes, thrones, and crowns of glory with God. It is
easy to see why absolute dualists among the Cathars were attracted by the
448 Catharist Literature

story, for it depicts a world in darkness and discord under Satan's rule, and
a struggle on the earth and in its atmosphere between satanic and divine
power. God the Father is superior to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. In His
earthly sojourn, the Son never becomes truly man, and the souls of the
righteous but not their carnal bodies are promised celestial reward in the
last days.
Both the composite Ascension of Isaiah and The Vision as a separate work
have received much scholarly attention. The Ascension was translated into
English by the Rev. R. H. Charles,7 who published the Latin, Greek, and
Ethiopic texts in the same volume. The Vision has also been translated into
French by Rene Nelli (Cahiers detudes cathares, XXXIII [1958], 23-38),
who utilized an earlier translation by Tisserant.
Another Bogomil tract, The Secret Supper (part B), is also known as
Interrogatio Johannis [the questions of John], because it presents Jesus as
responding to John’s inquiries. The tract has come down to us only in a
Latin text. It was originally written in either Slavonic or Greek, and some
of its doctrine is probably drawn from earlier apocrypha, but there is no
doubt of its Bogomil character.8 It reached Italy toward the end of the
twelfth century in the hands of Nazarius, bishop of the sect of Concorezzo.9
For him and his followers it afforded justification of many of their teachings,
although a dissident faction, led by Desiderius, about 1230 defied Nazarius
and repudiated the authority of The Secret Supper,10 Its influence may also
be seen among the Bagnolenses of Lombardy and some of the Albigenses
of Languedoc.
The Secret Supper depicts John the Evangelist at a Last Supper with
Christ in heaven, where he questions the Lord about the origin of the world
and man, the rule of Satan, Christ’s mission, and human salvation. Christ
reveals that Satan, once second only to God and Christ in the powers of
heaven, rebelled and won the allegiance of certain angels of the first five
heavens. For this he and one third of the angels were cast out. In the firma¬
ment to which he was exiled, Satan found no peace until God allowed him
seven days in which to build. In that time Satan made a universe consisting
of the earth, a throne, the sun, the moon, the natural phenomena of this
earth, its inhabitants, and his own angels. In man and woman he imprisoned
fallen angels from heaven; in Paradise he hid as a serpent to seduce Eve,
who taught Adam to lust. Enoch and Moses were his servants. When Christ
was sent to earth through the ear of an angel, Mary, Satan sent John the
Baptist with the spirit of Elijah to resist Him. But the Last Judgment will
result in Christ casting out evil and releasing His elect from their imprison¬
ment, so that in heaven they may receive imperishable raiment, crowns,
and thrones.
Two versions of The Secret Supper exist. One is found in Manuscript
1137 of the National library of Vienna; the other derives from a manuscript
once in the possession of the Inquisition at Carcassonne. Although the
Carcassonne manuscript has since been destroyed, its text was published in
56. Bogomil Literature (Introduction) 449
the seventeenth century,11 and a copy was also preserved in the Collection
Doat in Paris.12 The considerable differences between the versions of Vienna
and Carcassonne allow the surmise that each is rather far removed from the
original text; perhaps they suffered modifications as they were used for
preaching or teaching. Each version has been several times edited.12 We
follow the work of Reitzenstein.14 There is a French translation of both the
Vienna and the Carcassonne version by Ren6 Nelli.15
For The Secret Supper, as for The Vision of Isaiah, the date prefixed to
our translation is that at which the tract probably reached Western Europe.
The Vision of Isaiah is translated from the Latin text in R. H. Charles,
The Ascension of Isaiah, Translated from the Ethiopic Version, Which
Together with the New Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin
Translation of the Slavonic, Is Here Published in Full (London, 1900), pp.
98-139, by permission of A. and C. Black, Ltd. Part B is translated from
Richard Reitzenstein, Die Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (Leipzig and
Berlin, 1929), pp. 297-311, by permission of B. G. Teubner Verlaggesell-
schaft.

A. THE VISION OF ISAIAH

before 1222

Chapter 11
(1) The vision which Isaiah, the son of Amos, saw2 in the twentieth
year of the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah: Isaiah the prophet, son
of Amos, came to Hezekiah in Jerusalem; (2) and after he had come in,
he sat down upon the king’s couch. (3) And all the princes of Israel and
the counselors of the king and the eunuchs stood before him. (3-4) And
the prophets and the sons of prophets came from the villages and the
fields and the mountains to salute him, when they learned that Isaiah
had come from Gilgal, (5) and to anounce to him those things that were
to come.3 (6) Then he was speaking words of truth; the Holy Spirit
came upon him and all saw and heard the words of the Holy Spirit.
(7) The king suihmoned the prophets, and all entered together, as many
as were found there. Now there were the aged Micah and Ananiah, Joel,
and as many of them as were found there, on his right hand and on the
left. (8) However, when they heard the voice of the Holy Spirit they fell
to their knees and sang to the Highest God, who rests among the holy
ones. (9) Who bestowed such power of words in the world. (10) Now,
as he was speaking in the Holy Spirit in the hearing of all, he fell silent,
and thereupon they saw one4 standing before him. (11) His [Isaiah’s]
eyes were open, yet his mouth was closed, (12) but the inspiration of
450 Catharist Literature

the Spirit was with him.5 (14) And they did not think that Isaiah had
been exalted,6 but the prophets recognized that it was a revelation.
(15) The vision which he saw was not of this world but of what is hidden
from all flesh. (16) And when he ceased to behold the vision, he re¬
turned to himself and recounted the vision to Hezekiah and his son
Nason,

Chapter II
(1) and to Micah and the other prophets, saying, (2) “When I proph¬
esied what you heard, which you witnessed,7 I saw an angel, glorious
not with the glory of the angels whom I have always seen, but having a
particularly great glory and a light which I cannot describe. (3) Taking
me by the hand he led me on high, and I said, ‘Who are you, and what
is your name, and why are you lifting me up like a bird?’—for the ability
to speak to him was given me. (4) Then in answer he said to me, ‘When
I shall bear you on high I will show you the vision which is the purpose
for which I have been sent; then you will know who I am, but my name
you do not know, (5) because you wish to return again to your body.
And when I raise you on high hereafter you will see.’ (6) And I re¬
joiced because he answered me softly. (7) And he said to me, ‘You have
rejoiced because I replied gently to you, and you will see one greater
than I am wishing to speak to thee; one gentler and wiser, (8) better
and sweeter; for to this end was I sent, to explain all things to thee/
(9) And we ascended, he and I, upon the firmament, and there I saw
the great battle of Satan and his might opposing the loyal followers
(honorantiae) of God, and one surpassed the other in envy. (10) For
just as it is on earth, so also is it in the firmament, because replicas of
what are in the firmament are on earth, (11) And I said to the angel,
‘What is this war and envy and struggle?’ (12) And in reply he said to
me, ‘This is the devil’s war and he will not rest until He whom you wish
to see comes to slay him with the spirit of His virtue. (13) Thereafter,
he raised me into that which is above the firmament, which is the first
heaven. (14) And I saw in the midst thereof a throne on which an angel
was seated in great glory, and angels sat at his right and his left. (15)
Those on the right had a special glory, and they sang with one voice;
and those who were on the left sang after them8 but their song was not
like that of the ones on the right. (16) And I questioned the angel who
conducted me: ‘To whom is this song raised?’ (17) And in reply he said
56. Bogomil Literature (Part A) 451
to me, ‘To the great glory of God, who is above the seventh heaven,
and to His beloved Son, from whom I was sent to thee.’ (18) And again
he raised me up, into the second heaven; its height was the same as that
of the first heaven above earth. (19) And I saw there, just as in the first
heaven, angels on the right and on the left. (20) And the glory of these
angels and their song were superior to those of the first heaven. (21)
And I fell on my face to adore him,9 and the angel who guided me said
*

to me, ‘Adore not the angel nor the throne of this heaven. This is the
reason why I was sent to guide you; adore Him only of whom I will
tell you, and in like fashion adore Him who is (22) above all angels,
above thrones, and above the garments and crowns which you shall
see hereafter.’ (23) And I rejoiced with exceeding great joy, for such
is the consummation for those who know the Most High and Eternal
and His beloved Son, because they ascend to Them as by the angel of
the Holy Spirit.10 (24) And he raised me above the third heaven and in
like manner I saw a small throne11 and angels on the right and the left.
The memory of this world, however, was given no name there.12 (25)
But the glory of my spirit was undergoing a transformation as I
ascended into heaven18 and I said, ‘Nothing of that world is given a
name here.’ (26) And in reply the angel said to me, ‘Nothing is given a
name on account of its weakness and nothing is hidden of the things
which are done there.’ (27) And they sang a song and glorified him
who was enthroned, and this angel was greater than the second angel.14
(28) And again he raised me, unto the fourth heaven. The height from
the third to the fourth heaven was greater.15 (29) And I saw a throne
and angels on the right hand and on the left.16 (31) But the glory of him
who was enthroned was greater than that of the angels on the right hand
and their glory likewise surpassed the glory of those who were below.
(32) And I ascended into the fifth heaven, (33) and there I saw in¬
numerable angels (34) and their glory,17 (36) and their song was more
glorious than that of the fourth heaven. (37) And I marveled, beholding
such a multitude of angels arrayed in the ranks of their diverse good¬
nesses; each, having his own glory, glorified Him who is on high (Whose
name is not revealed to all flesh), because He gave so much glory to
the angels who are above each heaven. But in reply the angel said to
me, ‘Why are you astonished that they are not ail of one appearance?
You have not yet seen the insuperable virtues and the thousands and
thousands of thousands of angels.’
452 Catharist Literature

Chapter III
(1) “And thereafter he raised me into the air of the sixth heaven and
I saw there a great glory which I had not seen in the fifth heaven, (2)
And I beheld angels18 in great glory. (3) And the deeds of the virtues
were honorable and pre-eminent; their song was holy and wonderful.
(4) And I said to the angel who guided me, ‘What is it that I see, my
lord?’ (5) And he said to me, ‘I am not your lord but your counselor.’19
(7) And he spoke to me about the sixth heaven.29 Herein are neither
throne nor angels on the left,21 but they receive their direction from the
virtue of the seventh heaven, where dwells the mighty22 Son of God.
(8) And all the heavens and His angels hearken to Him, and I have
been sent to bring you hither, so that you may see this glory (9) and the
Lord of all the heavens and His angels and virtues.28 (11) Therefore, I
say to you, Isaiah, no one who desires to return to the flesh of that
world has seen what you see nor is able to see what you have seen;
(12) because it is your lot in the Lord to come here.’ (13) And I mag¬
nified the Lord24 in song because thus I go into His lot. (14) And he
[the angel] said to me, ‘When you shall have returned here through the
will of the Father, then you will receive your garment, and then you will
be equal to the angels who are in the seventh25 heaven.’ (16) And he
led me into the sixth heaven, and neither thrones nor angels on the
right and the left were there, but all had one appearance and identical
song. (17) And it was given me to sing with them; and the angel who
was with me and I, myself, were even as their glory, and their glory
was one.28 (18) And they glorified the Father of all and His beloved Son
and the Holy Spirit; all with one voice (19) they sang, but not with a
voice such as that of the fifth heaven, (20) but with a different voice.
And there was a great light there. (21) And when I was in the sixth
heaven I thought the light of the fifth heaven to be as darkness. (22) I
rejoiced greatly and sang to Him who gave such joy to those who re¬
ceived His mercy. (23) And I begged the angel who guided me never¬
more to return into that carnal world. (24) Moreover, I say unto you27
that here is much darkness. (25) But the angel who guided me said to
me, ‘Since you rejoice in this light, how much more will you rejoice and
exult when you see the light of the seventh heaven, in which sits the
Heavenly Father with His only begotten Son; (26) where lie the vest¬
ments28 and the thrones and the crowns of the righteous. (27) And as
to your plea not to return into your flesh, the time is not yet fulfilled for
56. Bogomil Literature (Part A) 453
your coming here.’ (28) And I sorrowed greatly at hearing these words.

Chapter IV
(1) “And. he raised me up into the air of the seventh heaven and I
heard a voice saying to me, ‘Why do you who desire to live in the flesh
come here?’ And I was very much afraid and trembled. (2) Again, I
heard another voice saying, ‘Forbid him not to come in, since he is
worthy of the glory of God, for here is his robe. (3) And I questioned
the angel who was with me, ‘Who is he who forbids me, and who is he
who bids me come up?’ (4) And he said to me, ‘The one who forbids
is he, the angel who is above the angels singing in the sixth heaven;
(5) and He who commands is the Son of God, and His name you may
not hear until you have departed from the flesh. ’ (6) When we ascended
into the seventh heaven I saw there an astounding and indescribable
light and innumerable angels. (7) And I saw certain of the righteous2*
(9) who, stripped of fleshly robes, were in heavenly robes and standing
in great glory. (10) But they sat not on their thrones; moreover, their
crowns of glory were not upon them. (11) And I questioned the angel,
saying, ‘Why have they received robes, and why have they not received
thrones and crowns of glory?’ (12-13) And he said to me, ‘Now they
receive them not, until the Son first brings here those thrones and
crowns, when He shall be in your likeness.’80 (14) And the prince of
that world will stretch forth his hand upon the Son of God and will kill
Him and hang Him on a tree, and he will kill Him not knowing who
He is. (15) And He will descend into hell and will lay it waste, with all
the phantoms of hell. (16) And He will seize the prince of death and
despoil him, and crush all his powers, and will rise again on the third
day; (17) having with him certain of the righteous. And He will send
His preachers into the whole world, and will ascend into heaven. (18)
Then these will receive their thrones and crowns.’81 (19) And after [he
said] these words, I said to him, ‘In regard to that which I asked you in
the first heaven, (20) show me, for this you promised.’82 (21) And as
I was addressing him, there was among those standing about us one
angel, more glorious than he who conducted me and than all the angels.
(22) And he showed me a book, and opening it, gave it to me; and I
saw writing which was not like that of this world. And I read it, and lo,
there were the deeds of Jerusalem recorded there, and the works of all
men were there, among whom also was I. (23) I saw in truth that nothing
454 Catharist Literature

which was done in the world was hidden in the seventh heaven. And I
questioned the angel, ‘Who is this who is pre-eminent over all the angels
in his glory?’ And in reply to me he said, ‘He is the great angel, Michael,
who prays constantly for humanity and humility.’33 (24) I saw many
robes and thrones and crowns lying there. (25) And I said to the angel,
‘For whom are these robes and crowns and thrones reserved?’ (26) And
he said to me, ‘Many of that world lost these crowns, who are believers
in the world of Him of whom I have spoken34 to you.’ (27) And, turn¬
ing about, I saw the Lord in great glory and I was most sorely afraid.
(28) And all the righteous approached Him and adored Him singing
with one voice and [my] voice was like unto theirs. (29) And Michael,
approaching Him, adored and together with him all the angels adored
and sang. (30) And I was again transfigured and was like the angels.
(31) Then the angel who conducted me said to me ‘Adore Him and
sing.’ And I adored Him and sang. (32) And the angel who conducted
me said to me, ‘He is the Lord of all the glories which you have seen.’
(33) And I saw another most glorious one, like unto Him in all things,
and the righteous approached Him and adored Him and sang, and I
sang35 with them and I was not transfigured into their aspect.36 (34) And
the angels came with them and adored Him, and I adored Him and
sang. (35) And again, I saw the other in great glory. And while walking,
I questioned the angel, ‘Who is He?’ And he said to me, ‘Adore Him, for
he is the angel of the Holy Spirit, who speaks in you and in all the
righteous.’ (37) And after that, another indescribable and ineffable glory
was revealed which I could not behold with the opened eyes of my
spirit, nor could the angel who conducted me nor all the angels whom I
saw adoring the Lord. (38) But I fcaw the righteous only in great glory
beholding [His] glory. (39) And my Lord approached first and then
the angel of the Holy Spirit (angelus spiritualis). (40) And they adored
Him and the two37 sang together. (41) Then all the righteous adored
Him, (42) and with them Michael and all the angels adored and sang.

Chapter V
(1) “Thereafter I heard a voice there and the song which I heard in
the six heavens38 rose up and was heard in the seventh heaven. (2) And
all glorified Him whose glory I could not behold.39 (5) And the song of
all six heavens was not only heard but seen. (6) And the angel said to
me, ‘He is the One Living Eternal, living in the highest eternity and
56. Bogomil Literature (Part A) 455
resting among the holy ones; we canpot endure to name or see Him
who is praised by the Holy Spirit in the mouths of the holy [and] right-
eous. (7) And after that, I heard the voice of the Eternal saying to the
Lord [His] Son:44 (8) ‘Go forth and descend from all the heavens and
be in the world, and go even to the angel who is in hell; (9) trans¬
figuring thyself into their form.41 (11) And neither the angels nor the
princes of that world shall know thee. (12) And thou shalt judge the
prince of that world and his angels, and the rulers of the world, (13)
because they have denied me and said, “We are and without us there is
no one.” (14) Thereafter, thou shalt not transfigure thyself as thou
ascendest through the heavens in great glory, and thou wilt sit at my
right hand. (15) Then the princes and the virtues and all the angels and
all the principalities42 of the heavens and of earth and of the lower
regions will adore thee.’ (16) And I heard the Great Glory commanding
my Lord. (17) And then the Lord went out from the seventh heaven
and descended into the sixth heaven. (18) And the angel who guided me
said to me, ‘Understand and see the manner of His transfiguration and
descent.’ (19) When the angels saw Him, they praised and glorified Him,
for He was not transfigured into their image,44 and I sang with them.
(20) When He had descended into the fifth heaven, there at once He
was transfigured into the form of those angels and they did not sing to
Him or adore Him, for He was of a form like theirs. (21) And He
descended into the fourth heaven and appeared to them in their form.
(22) And they did not sing to Him for He was of a form like theirs.
(23) Moreover, He came into the third heaven,44 (25-28) and into the
second and the first, transfiguring Himself in each of them. Consequently,
they did not sing to Him or adore Him, for He appeared to them in
fa form] like theirs. And He showed them a sign (characterem) ** (29)
Moreover, He descended into the firmament and there gave the signs
(signa), and His form was like unto theirs, and they did not glorify Him
and they did not sing to Him. (30) And He descended to the angels who
were in this air as though He were one of them. (31) And He gave them
no sign, nor did they sing to Him.46

Chapter VI
(1) “And after these things, the angel said to me, ‘Know, Isaiah, son
of Amos, this is why I was sent by God to show you all things. For no
one before you has seen nor can anyone after you see what you have
 Catharist Literature

seal and heard.’ And I saw one like the Son of Man dwelling with men
and in the world.47 (19) And they did not recognize Him.48 (23) And I
saw Him ascending into the firmament and He was not transfigured
into [their] form. And all die angels who were above the firmament
were struck with fear at the sight and, adoring, (24) they said, ‘How
didst Thou descend4* into our midst, Lord, and we did not recognize
the King of Glory?’ (25) And He ascended into the first heaven more
gloriously and did not transfigure Himself. Then all the angels (26)
adored and sang, saying, ‘How didst Thou pass through our midst, Lord,
and we did not see or adore Thee?’ (27-30) Thus He ascended into the
second heaven and into the third and into the fourth and into the fifth
and into the sixth, (31) even to all the heavens, and His glories in¬
creased.®* (32) When He ascended into the seventh heaven, all the
righteous sang to him, and all the angels and virtues whom I could not
see. (33) I saw a wonderful angel sit at His left hand, (34) who said to
me, ‘This suffices you, Isaiah, for you have seen what no other son of
the flesh has seen, which eyes cannot see nor ears hear, nor can it rise
in the heart of man, how much God has prepared for all who love
Him.’61 (35) And he said to me, ‘Return in your robe until the time of
your days shall be fulfilled and then you shall come here.’ ” (36) Having
seen these things, Isaiah spoke to those standing about him; and, hear¬
ing these wonders, all sang and glorified the Lord, who gave such grace
to men. And he said to Hezekiah the king, (37) “The consummation of
this world (38) and works will be fulfilled in the last generations.” (39)
And he forbade them to proclaim these words to the children of Israel
or to give them to any man to be recorded. (40) But how many things
will be understood by the king and by the utterances in the prophets!52
And thus be you also in the Holy Spirit, so that you may receive your
robes and thrones and crowns of glory placed in the heavens. He ceased
then to speak and went out from King Hezekiah.53

The Vision of Isaiah as retold in the fourteenth century

The following is part of the testimony of a witness before the Inquisition at
Panders, 1321, published by J. J. I. von Dollinger, Beitrdge zur Sektenge-
schichte des Mittelalters (2 vols., Munich, 1890), II, 166-67, from Vatican
Latin manuscript 4030.
[The witness testified that a heretic had told him:] Once there was a
good man of their sect who was in a quandary as to whether he held the
56. Bogomil Literature (Part A ) 457

right faith, and he besought God the Father to show him whether he
held to a good faith and a right way, and also to show him His glory.
And one day, while he was praying for this, an angel appeared to him
and told him that he had come for the purpose of showing him the glory
of the Holy Father and whether he held to the good faith and the right
way. And he caused the man aforesaid to climb upon his shoulder and,
carrying him, came to the first heaven after the turbulence of this world.
And there he set him down. And the man saw the lord of the aforesaid
world and heaven and, approaching him, sought to adore him, but was
forbidden by the angel, who said he must not adore him because this
was not his Father. Thereupon the angel, taking that good man on his
shoulder, carried him to the second world and the second heaven, and
there set him down. And the man, seeing the lord of the second world
standing in greater glory than did the lord of the first, wished to adore
him but was forbidden by the angel. And in the same way the man was
carried by the angel through all the other heavens up to the seventh
heaven, and he sought to adore the lords of the heavens and worlds, who
were of the greater glory the higher they were, but was forbidden by the
angel to adore them. Then, he was carried into the seventh heaven and
beheld the Lord of that heaven; the angel told him that this was the
Holy Father and that he should adore Him; and approaching the Father,
the man adored Him. And the Holy Father questioned the man about
whence he came. He answered: “From the land of tribulations.” And
as the man beheld in heaven great brilliance, many angels, beautiful
groves and singing birds, and saw that joy without sadness was there,
that neither hunger nor thirst existed there, nor cold nor heat, but most
moderate temperatures, he said to the Holy Father that it would be
pleasing to remain with Him thenceforth. But the Holy Father replied
that he could not remain there at that time, since flesh born of corrup¬
tion could not stay there, but it behooved him to descend to the land of
tribulation and to preach that faith which he knew, since that was His
faith. And the man requested the Father to let him stay with Him for a
little while, which He conceded to him. And after a time, the angel told
the man to climb upon his shoulder, since the hour had come to descend.
And the man answered that he had not yet been with the Father
[as long as] from the first to the third hour, but the angel told him that,
on the contrary, he had been there thirty-two years, and this he found
to be true when he was on earth. And having climbed ypon the angel’s
458 Catharist Literature

shoulder and descended through all the heavens, he came to this earth.
And afterward he preached what he had seen. And thus, the heretic
said, their faith and sect were confirmed.®4

B. THE SECRET SUPPER

circa 1190
In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.
The questions of John, the apostle and evangelist, at a secret supper1
in the kingdom of heaven, about the governance of this world, about its
ruler, and about Adam:
I, John, partner in tribulation so that I might be a partner in the
kingdom of God,2 leaning on the breast of Jesus Christ our Lord at the
supper, said to Him; “Lord, who shall betray Thee?” And the Lord said
unto me: “He that shall have dipped his hand in the dish, into him shall
Satan enter. He shall betray me.”s
I said, “Lord, before Satan fell, in what splendor did he attend the
Father?” He said: “Among the virtues4 of heaven and at the throne of

Father.5 He [Satan] it was who presided over the virtues of the heavens
and those who attended on the Father. His power descended from the
heavens even unto hell, and arose even unto the throne of the Father
invisible. He had wardship of those splendors which were above all the
heavens. And he pondered, wishing to place his throne upon the clouds
and to ‘be like the Most High.’6 When he had come down to lower air,
he descried an angel seated upon the air,7 to whom he said, ‘Open to
me the portals of the air’; these the angels opened for him. And passing
down, he descried an angel who guarded the waters,8 to whom he said,
‘Open to me the portals of the waters’; the angel opened them to him.
And descending further, he found the whole earth covered with water;
walking beneath this, he came upon two fish, lying upon the waters.
These, indeed, were yoked together,9 and they bore up the whole earth
at the bidding of the Father invisible. And passing down further still, he
found great clouds holding the massed waters of the sea. And descending
lower, he found his hell, which is the Gehenna of fire; but thereafter he
was unable to go further down, because of the flame of the fire which
was raging.
“Then Satan retraced his path, filling himself with evil plots. He
56. Bogomil Literature (Part B) 459

ascended to the angel who was over the air and to the angel who was
over the waters, and unto them said: ‘All things are mine. If you hearken
to me, I will place my throne over the clouds and I will be like the Most
High.101 will bear the waters up above this firmament and I will gather
the other waters into wide seas.11 After that there shall not be water
upon the face of the whole earth, and I shall reign with you forever and
ever.’12 Thus he spoke to the angels. He ascended to the very heavens,
even unto the third heaven, subverting the angels of the Father invisible,
and saying to each of them, ‘How much dost thou owe thy lord?’ The
first answered, ‘A hundred barrels of oil.’ He said to him, Take the bill
and sit down and write fifty.’ And he said to another, ‘Now you, how
much dost thou owe thy lord?’ Who said, ‘A hundred quarters of wheat.’
To him he said, ‘Take thy bill and sit down quickly and write eighty.’13
To the other heavens he ascended with like speech; he ascended even
unto the fifth heaven, seducing the angels of the Father invisible.
“And a voice came from the throne of the Father, saying: ‘What dost
thou, O thou devoid of hope, subverting the angels of the Father?
Contriver of sin, do quickly what thou hast planned.’14 Then the Father
bade his angels, ‘Take from all the angels who hearkened to him the
garments, the thrones, and the crowns’;15 and these angels took the
vestments, the thrones, and the crowns from all the angels who heark¬
ened to him.”
And once again I, John, questioned the Lord, saying, “When Satan
fell, in what place did he dwell?” In answer He said to me: “Because of
his self-exaltation, my Father decreed his transformation,16 withdrawing
from him the light of His glory. The face of Satan was like an iron
glowing from the fire, and the whole aspect of his countenance was like
that of a man... .17 And he had seven tails with which he drew away the
third part of the angels of God.18 He was cast out from before the
throne of God and from the stewardship of heaven. Falling down from
heaven, Satan could find no peace in this firmament, nor could those
who were with him. And he besought the Father, saying: ‘I have sinned.
Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.’19 The Lord was moved
with pity for him and gave him peace to do what he would until the
seventh day.20
“Then Satan took his seat above the firmament and gave command
to the angel who was over the air and the angel who was over the
460 Catharist Literature

waters, so that they raised two thirds of the waters high into the air. Of
the remaining third they formed wide seas. The division of the waters
was by command of the Father invisible. Again Satan bade the angel
who was over the waters, Take a stand upon the two fish.’ And the
angel raised the earth upward with his head, and dry land appeared and
was... .21 When he took a crown from the angel who was over the air,
from half of it he made himself a throne;22 and when he took a crown
from the angel who was over the waters, from half he made the light of
the moon and from half the light of day. From precious stones he made
fire, and from fire he made all the host of heaven and the stars,28 and
from them he made angels, his ministering spirits, according to the plan
of the Governor Most High. He also made thunder, rain, hail, and
snow, and over these he set his ministering angels.
“He commanded the earth to bring forth all living things24—animals,
trees, and herbs. The sea he commanded to bring forth fish; and the
air, birds of the heavens. And he pondered on making man to serve
him; he took clay of the earth and made man like unto himself.26 And
he then bade an angel of the second heaven to enter the body of clay.
Of this body he took a part and made another body in the form of a
woman26 and bade an angel of the first heaven27 to enter into it. And
the angels grieved deeply that they thus had a mortal form imposed
upon them and that they now existed in different forms. And Satan
bade them to perform the works of the flesh in their bodies of clay, but
they did not know how to commit sin. The originator of sin accom¬
plished his purpose by his seduction, in this way: He planted a para¬
dise28 and set men therein and bade them not to eat of its fruits. The
devil entered Paradise and planted a bed of reeds in the midst of
Paradise; of his spittle he made a serpent and bade him remain in the
reeds. Thus the devil concealed the knowledge of his deceit so that they
would not perceive his treachery. He went in to them saying, ‘Eat of all
the fruit in Paradise, but of the fruit of good and evil2® eat not.’ There¬
after the wicked devil, entering into the evil serpent, deceived the angel
who was in the form of a woman and poured out upon her head a
longing for sin,30 and Eve’s desire was like a glowing oven. Forthwith,
the devil in the form of the serpent came out of the reeds and sated his
lust on her31 with the serpent’s tail. That is why [the offspring] are
called not sons of God32 but sons of the devil and sons of the serpent,33
fulfilling the diabolic desires of their father even unto the end of the
56. Bogomil Literature (Part B) 461
world. After this, the devil poured out his longing upon the head of the
angel who was in Adam; and [both angels] were affected by a lust for
debauchery, together begetting children of the devil and of the serpent,
until the consummation of the world.”
[4] After that I, John, questioned the Lord, saying, “Why do men
say that Adam and Eve were made by God and placed in Paradise to
keep His commandments, and that for transgression of the Father’s
commandment they were delivered up unto death?” The Lord said
unto me: “Hear, John, most beloved. Men are foolish who speak thus,
for my Father did not, in transgression (in praevaricatione) 34 of His
own law, shape bodies of clay, but by the Holy Spirit made [only] all
the virtues of heaven. These, however, for their sins and by their fall
are found possessing bodies of clay and are delivered up to death.”
[5] And still I, John, questioned the Lord, saying, “Lord, how did
man have spiritual origin in a carnal body?” And the Lord said to me:
“By their fall spirits of heaven entered the female body of clay and
took on flesh from the lusts of the flesh and took on [spirit at the same
time]... .35 Spirit is born of spirit and flesh of flesh;36 and thus the
reign of Satan ceases not in this world.” 37
[6] And I questioned the Lord, saying, “For how long will Satan
have dominion in this world over the essences of men?” And the Lord
replied, “My Father will permit him to reign seven days, that is, seven
ages.”
[7] Again I, John, questioned the Lord in this wise, “What will be the
nature of this period [of seven ages]?” And He said to me: “From the
time when the devil fell from the glory of the Father and desired his
own glory, he took his seat among the clouds and sent forth his ministers,
a searing fire, and .. .38 in the land from Adam to Enoch. And he sent
his minister to Enoch and translated him above the firmament and dis¬
played to him his divine nature. He then commanded that he be given
quill and ink. Seating himself, Enoch wrote seventy-six39 books; these
the devil bade him to take to earth. Enoch took the books and turned
them over to his sons, and he taught them how to observe the form and
place of sacrificial rites. This they did in such wise as to ‘shut the
kingdom of heaven against men.’40 And he [the devil] said to them, ‘See
you that I am god and there is no other god beside me.’41 Wherefore my
Father sent me to this world to make manifest His name42 to men, that
they might recognize the devil and his wickedness. But when Satan
462 Catharist Literature
learned that I had come down to this world, he sent his angel to take
three pieces of wood. These he gave to the prophet Moses for my cruci¬
fixion. This wood they have kept for me until the present.43 And he
revealed to Moses his divinity and bade him give laws to the children of
Israel and lead them on dry ground through the midst of the sea.44
“When my Father thought to send me to this earth, He sent before
me His angel, she who is called Mary, my mother, that she might
receive me through the Holy Spirit. And when I descended, I entered
and came forth through her ear. Now Satan, the prince of this world,
knew that I was come to seek and ‘to save that which was lost’;45 and
he sent his angel, the prophet Elijah, who baptized in water and was
called John the Baptist.48 Now, Elijah asked the prince of this world
how he might recognize me.47 And the devil said to him, ‘Upon Whom
thou shalt see the Holy Spirit descending as a dove, and remaining upon
Him, He it is that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit and with fire.’ John
asked this because he did not know me, but the one who sent him to
baptize in water, he revealed me. John himself gave testimony: ‘I baptize
in water unto penance, but He baptizes you with the Holy Spirit unto
the remission of sins. He it is who is able to destroy and to save.’ ’’
[8] And again I, John, questioned the Lord, “Can man be saved
through the baptism [of John?’’ He replied:]48 “Without my baptism,
with which I baptize unto the remission of sins, I affirm that no one
can receive salvation in God. For I am the bread of life that came
down from the seventh heaven, wherefore whoso eats my flesh and
drinks my blood, these shall be called the children of God.” 49
[9] I inquired of the Lord, “What is the meaning of your ‘flesh’ and
your ‘blood’?” To me the Lord answered: “Before the devil had fallen
with all the angelic host of the Father, the angels in their prayers
glorified my Father by repeating this prayer, ‘Our Father who art in
heaven.’ This chant ascended to the throne of the Father; but the
angels from the time of their fall could no longer glorify God in this
prayer.”
[10] And again I asked the Lord, “How is it that the whole world
received the baptism of John, but Thine is not accepted by all?” The
Lord replied to me: “That is because their works are evil and they come
not to the light. The followers of John marry and are given in marriage,
whereas my disciples marry not at all but remain as the angels of God
in the heavenly kingdom.” 50
56. Bogomil Literature (Part B) 463

[11] Then I said to Him, “If it is a sin to have knowledge of women,

is it then unwise to marry ?” And the Lord replied: “All men take not
this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were
born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were
made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”51
[12] Afterward, I questioned the Lord about the Day of Judgment,
“What shall be the sign of Thy coming?” 52 In reply He said: “When
the number of the just shall equal the number of those crowned [angels]
who fell.53 Then shall Satan, raging mightily, be ‘loosed out of his
prison.’54 He shall war upon the just, who shall cry out to the Lord
their God; forthwith the Lord God shall command the archangel to
sound his trumpet, and the voice of the archangel shall go forth from
the heavens and be heard even unto the nether regions. Then ‘the sun
shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars
shall fall from heaven.’55 And there shall be loosed from their founda¬
tions the four great winds;56 the earth, the sea, the mountains, and the
hills shall tremble together. Then shall be revealed the sign of the Son,
and all tribes of earth shall mourn.57 Immediately the heaven shall
tremble and be darkened, the sun shall shine until the ninth hour.58
Then shall the Son of man be shown forth in his glory, and all the
saints and angels with Him; they shall place their seats above the clouds.
And He shall sit upon the seat of His glory, with the twelve apostles
upon their twelve seats of glory.59 The books shall be opened, and all
the peoples of the earth shall be judged.60 Then shall the faith be pro¬
claimed. Then shall the Son of man send forth His angels. They shall
gather His elect from the heights even to the uttermost limits of the
heavens and shall bring them, gathered into their fold, to me above the
clouds, into the air,61 Then shall the Son of God send forth the evil
demons and expel them in His wrath, together with all peoples (linguas)
who believed in him [Satan].. ,62 who said, ‘Let us eat, drink, and lay
hold on the things of this world’;63 and let us see what manner of aid
they shall have from those things. Forthwith all peoples shall stand in
fear before the judgment [throne]. The two books shall be opened and
they shall lay bare all peoples with their teaching; they shall glorify the
just for their sufferings joined with good works. Glory and boundless
honor shall be the reward of those who have cherished the angelic life;
while the portion of the servants of iniquity shall be wrath, fury, distress,
464 Catharist Literature

and displeasure. And the Son of man shall separate His just from the
company of sinners and shall say to them, ‘Come, ye blessed of my
Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world’;64 while to the sinful He shall say, ‘Depart from me, you
cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his
angels.’65 Others shall witness the final division and ‘the wicked shall
be turned into hell.’66 By the indulgence of my Father the unbelieving
spirits shall at length withdraw from prison; ‘they shall hear my voice,
and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’67
“Then, by permission of my Father, gloomy darkness shall spread
over the lower regions of the earth and a hell of fire shall burn all the
land from its lowest depths even unto the air of the firmament.08 And
the Lord shall be [supreme]69 in the firmament even unto the nether
regions of the earth. Should a man of thirty years pick up a stone and
let it drop, it would scarcely strike the bottom within the space of three
years, so great is the depth of the pool of fire wherein dwell the sinners.70
Then Satan shall be bound and all his host, and he shall be cast into
the pool of fire.71 The Son of God, with his elect, shall walk above the
firmament; and He shall shut up the devil, binding him with unbreak-
%

able bonds, with sinners weeping, wailing, and crying out ‘Swallow us
up, O land, hide us within thyself.’74 Then shall the just shine as the
sun in the kingdom of their Father. And Jesus shall lead them before the
throne of the Father invisible and shall say to the Father, ‘Behold, I and
my children, whom God hath given me.73 Just Father, the world hath
not known Thee, but I have known Thee in truth because Thou hast
sent me.’74 And then the Father will reply to His Son, saying, ‘My
beloved Son, sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy foot¬
stool76—thy enemies, who have denied me and said, “We are gods,
and there is no other god beside us”;76 who killed your prophets and
persecuted your just. You shall persecute them in the exterior dark¬
ness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’77
“And then the Son of God shall sit on the right hand of his Father,
and the Father shall command His angels that they minister unto them
[the just]; and He shall place them in the choir of angels and clothe
them in imperishable raiment; and He shall give them crowns never
fading and seats unmoving. And God shall be in their midst. ‘They
shall no more hunger nor thirst; neither shall the sun fall on them, nor
any heat. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.’78 And
56. Bogomil Literature (Part B)

[the Son] shall reign with his Holy Father, and his reign shall endure
forevermore.”
This is the Secret of the heretics of Concorrezzo, brought from
Bulgaria by Nazarius, their bishop. It is full of errors.79

57. The Catharist Rituals

It has been disclosed repeatedly in the preceding documents that the act of
central importance in the religious life of the Cathars was the consola-
mentum,1 a spiritual baptism received on admission to the Church of Christ.
When perfected Cathars imposed their hands on the body of the initiate
while the Gospel was held over his head, their prayers were believed to win
him forgiveness for the sin committed at the fall from heaven, as well as
for his transgressions in this earthly life. Released from the power of the evil
god, his soul would regain its guiding spirit and would find the way of
return to its heavenly home.2 It was not easy to attain this consecrated state
nor to follow the way of life required during the remaining bodily existence
on earth. Like a catechumen of the early Church—Catharist practices reflect
the ancient usage8—a believer had to undergo a period of probation,
normally at least a year, during which he was instructed in the faith and
disciplined in a life of rigorous asceticism. When the postulant was judged
ready, the right and obligation of saying the Lord’s Prayer was conveyed
to him in a short ceremony, in which he was instructed in the tradition of
prayer as it was declared to have descended from the apostles. This prelim¬
inary rite brought him to the Church;4 he might then proceed, either at once
or after further probation, to the consolamentum, which would effect the
complete spiritual transformation. Thereafter, the Christian 5 renounced the
material world and accepted a strict moral and ethical code. His life was to
be spent in imitation of the apostles. He was to return' good for evil in every
circumstance and suffer without retaliation the persecution which must be
endured by every true follower of Christ. To kill, to lie, to take an oath was
to commit mortal sin.8 Sexual relationships which would reproduce the
bodies of this world were forbidden. Meat, eggs, and cheese, as products of
coition, must not be used. Obeying these injunctions, the Cathar was assured
that on the death of his body his soul would be released from its material
prison and would find salvation.
In addition to the important ceremonies described above, other occasions
for personal prayer and public worship marked the daily life of the Cathars.
Summary descriptions of all these religious practices are plentiful in orthodox
sources, but the two documents translated here give the rituals as used in the
thirteenth century. One was written in Latin and is judged to have been
composed in the second quarter of the thirteenth century in Italy. The writer
had before him, and on occasion followed closely, a document written in
Provencal, which influenced his Latin style. Later, some other hand inter-
466 Catharist Literature
polated a special interpretation of the phrase “supersubstantial bread.” 7 The
other ritual was written in Proven9al in a manuscript of the Bible in that
language, perhaps as late as 1280, but this ritual may well represent early
Catharist practice more closely than does the Latin version. It adds to the
two major ceremonies the formulas for the monthly confession called the
Service and for the baptism of an invalid, together with certain rules of
conduct. Between the Latin and Provencal texts there are minor differences
in the phrasing of invocations, the sequence of actions, and the titles given
to the presiding officials. Other, more significant differences are that in the
Latin version the believer is instructed not to scorn his earlier baptism in the
Roman faith, even though it was insufficient for salvation—no hint of this
instruction appears in the Provencal text8—and he promises more emphati¬
cally to live in obedience to the Church.
A preliminary sketch of the ceremonies described in the rituals and a word
about the choice of English equivalents for the terms used in the Latin and
the Provencal version is given here by way of introduction.
At the beginning of the ritual in Provencal is found a group of invocations
and blessings, together with the Lord’s Prayer and the opening of the Gospel
of John (1:1-17), all written in Latin. This may be only a catalogue of the
formal phrases which are many times repeated, always in Latin, during the
religious ceremonies described in the following parts of the ritual. Some
authors, however, have seen in this passage the form for a service of wor¬
ship, to which they give the name of Benediction or Catharist Mass.9 Neither
phrase is appropriate, for more than blessings are included and the whole
is in no way comparable to the orthodox Mass. We, therefore, while not
insisting that this passage actually constitutes a separate ceremony, refer to
it here as “phrases for worship.”
The Service (lo servisi), described only in the Provencal ritual, was a
monthly gathering for confession by the Perfect.10 Catholic sources usually
refer to it as the apparellamentum. The word “Service” (servitium) is applied
in the Latin ritual to acts at the close of the more important ceremonies
and desfgnates a short sequence of confession and prayer,11 the equivalent
of the Double, described below.
ministrants of the Prayer and the consolamentum
in the two documents. In the Proven?al,
Provencal, the minister is
i called “the elder”
(Vanda) and is assisted by “one of the Good Men,” that is, by another
perfected Cathar. In the Latin ritual, the presiding Cathar is the ordinatus,12
which we render in Engish as “prior”; and his assistant has the title of
“elder The sponsor who presented the postulant
charge of the hospice
term
minister
mentum to a believer (at least two persons acting together were normally
required), but it was primarily a function of the bishop, his sons, or the
deacons. In their absence, the ministry fell to those who had been professed
57. Catharist Rituals (Introduction) 467
heretics for the longest period of time.13
The melioramentum was the common form of greeting by believers to the
Perfect at any time and, with certain changes of phrasing, was the manner
in which one Cathar greeted another.14 It finds a place in the rituals (it is
called fasso so miloirer or milhoirer in the Provencal text; the actions are
described but no name is given to them in the Latin) as the formal salutation
and leave-taking at the beginning and the end of the ceremonies. The
melioramentum consisted of saying three times, “Bless us; have mercy upon
us,” accompanying each request with a prostration or genuflection, and
following these with a plea that good be done to the believer.
“Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” was a phrase
repeated almost as frequently as “Bless us; have mercy upon us”; it was said
several times before and after the Lord’s Prayer and at numerous other
moments. Sometimes it is indicated in the rituals only by the first word
(adoremus).
The Pardon was a formal exchange in which the presiding officials and the
congregation asked forgiveness of their sins. They did so at the start of the
ceremonies and at their conclusion. Just before receiving the consolamen-
tum, the believer also participated in the Pardon. The Latin text uses the
word perdonum; the Provencal the words las parcias. Both rituals prescribe
much the same sequence of words and actions: the phrase “Bless us, etc.”
m

thrice repeated by the congregation or the believer with genuflections, fol¬

lowed by “May the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit forgive us (me) all
our (my) sins. Let it be done unto us according to Thy word.” The reply of
the ministrant was to repeat the request for forgiveness from God.
The Grace (la gratia in Provencal, gratia in Latin) was the familiar invoca¬
tion: “May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.”
The Act of Peace (far patz in Provencal, ire ad pacem in Latin) was per¬
formed at the end of the ceremony. Male heretics saluted each other with
an embrace and a kiss on each cheek; women kissed the Gospel and each
other, sometimes the shoulder or elbow of a man. Believers also shared in
these acts.15
Special terms designate multiple repetitions of the Lord’s Prayer. The Six
(sezena) of the Provencal ritual entailed six repetitions of the Lord’s Prayer,
as is shown by comparison with the Latin text. The Double (dobla, duplet),
which concluded major ceremonies, consisted of sixteen repetitions of the
Prayer, accompanied by genuflections. The Double was also performed in
private prayer and at the end of the day, though on occasion the Single
(sembla) could take its place.16
The Latin version of the ritual, edited by Dondaine, is analyzed at some
length by him and compared with the Provencal text.17 Borst also discusses
its authorship, style, and content.18 The Provencal version was published with
a parallel French translation, by L6on Cledat. Both the Latin and Provencal
versions were translated into French by Ren6 Nelli (Ecritures cathares, pp.
228-52, 211-27, respectively). There is an abridged English translation of
468 Catharist Literature

the ritual of the consolamentum and of the discourse to the initiate, in Olden-
bourg, Massacre at Montsigur, Appendices A and B. A short excerpt in
English will also be found in Petry, History of Christianity, pp. 348-49.
In part A, the ritual is translated from the Latin text in Antoine Dondaine,
Un Traitd neo-manich£en du Xllle siecle: Le Liber de duobus principiis,
suivi d*un fragment de rituel cathare (Rome, 1939), pp. 151-65, by permis¬
sion of the Istituto storico domenicano di S. Sabina. The translation of the
Provencal text in part B is from Leon C16dat, Le Nouveau Testament traduit
au Xllle siecle en langue provengaHe, suivi drun rituel cathare (Paris, 1887),
pp. ix-xxvi (printed text and French translation), 470-82 (photograph of the
original manuscript), by permission of the Bibliotheque de la Faculty des
lettres et sciences humaines de l’Universite de Lyon.

A. THE RITUAL TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN TEXT

circa 1240-1250
[The Ministration of the Holy Prayer]
[The ministrant is addressing the initiate: “ ‘The meek] shall increase
their joy in the Lord, and the poor men shall rejoice in the Holy One of
Israel. For he that did prevail hath failed, the scorner is consumed, and
they are all cut off that watched for iniquity, that made men sin by
word and supplanted him that reproved them in the gate.’ ” 1
On Compassion for the People.2—“Thus, by virtue of these and
many other proofs, is the understanding given that the Holy Father
desires to have compassion on His people and to receive them into His
peace and concord through the advent of His Son, Jesus Christ. This,
then, is the reason why you are here in the presence of the disciples of
Jesus Christ, where spiritually dwell the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, as was previously disclosed: that you may become worthy to
receive this Holy Prayer which the Lord Jesus Christ gave to His dis¬
ciples, so that your supplications and prayers may be heard by our
Most Holy Father, as David says, ‘Let my prayer be directed as in¬
cense in Thy sight.’ ” 8
On Receiving the Holy Prayer.—“Thus, you should know how you
ought to receive this Holy Prayer, that is, ‘Our Father.’4 The Prayer
indeed is brief but it includes a great deal. He who should recite ‘Our
Father,’ then must honor Him with good works. The Son is called ‘love
of the Father’; hence, he who desires to be a son by inheritance keeps
himself absolutely from evil deeds.
“The phrase ‘Our Father’ is an invocation, as though one were saying:
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) 469

O Father of those only who are to achieve salvation.

“ ‘Who art in heaven,’ that is, who dwells in the saints or in the
heavenly powers. And, indeed, for that reason one says ‘Our Father who
art in heaven’ to distinguish Him from the father of the devil, who is a
liar and the father of the evil ones, namely, those who are utterly de¬
prived of the mercy of salvation. And thus we say ‘Our Father.’
“ ‘Hallowed be Thy name.’ By the ‘name’ of God is meant the law
of Christ, as if one were to say: May Thy law be confirmed in Thy
people.
“ ‘Thy kingdom come.’ By the ‘kingdom’ of God is meant Christ, just
as Christ says in the Gospel, ‘For lo, the kingdom of God is within
you.’5 Or, by the ‘kingdom’ of God is meant the people of God who
are to achieve salvation, as if one were to say: Lord, lead Thy people
out of the land of the enemy. Thus, the prophet Joel says: ‘Between
the porch and the altar the priests, the Lord’s ministers, shall weep and
shall say, “Spare, O Lord, spare Thy people and give not Thy in¬
heritance to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them. Why
should they say among the nations: Where is their God?” ’6 And for
that reason, Christians daily pray to their most benevolent God for the
salvation of the people of God.
“ ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’; as though one were
saying: So let Thy will be done in this people who cling to an earthly
nature as it is done in the higher kingdom or in Christ, who says, ‘I
came not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me, the
Father.’7
“ ‘Our supersubstantial bread.’8 By ‘supersubstantial bread’ is meant
the law of Christ which was laid upon the whole people. Isaiah, we
believe, says of this bread: ‘And in that day seven women shall take
hold of one man, saying, “We will eat our own bread, and wear our
own apparel, only let us be called by thy name.” ’9 And David says:
‘I am smitten as grass and my heart is withered because I forgot to eat
my bread.’10 And in the Book of Wisdom it is written: ‘Thou didst
feed Thy people with the food of angels and gavest them bread from
heaven prepared without labor, having in it all that is delicious and the
sweetness of every taste. For Thy sustenance showed Thy sweetness to
Thy children and, serving every man’s will, it was turned to what every
man liked.’11 And through Isaiah the Lord says: ‘Deal thy bread to the
hungry, and bring the needy and the harborless into thy house; when
470 Catharist Literature

thou shalt see one naked, cover him, and despise not thy own flesh.’14
Of this bread, we believe, Jeremiah says in Lamentations, ‘The little
ones have asked for bread and there was none to break it unto them.’14
And Christ says to the Jews in the Gospel of John: ‘Amen, amen, I say
to you, Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth
you die true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which
cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.’14 And again,
‘I am the bread of life’—that is, I have the commandments of life. ‘He
that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall
never thirst.’15 And again: ‘Amen, amen, I say unto you, he that be¬
lieveth in me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. This is the
bread which cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat of it, he
may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If
any man eat of this bread’—that is, if any man shall keep my com¬
mandments—‘he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give to
him is my flesh, for the life of the world’—that is, of the people. ‘The
Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give
us his flesh to eat” ’—as if one were to say: It was a question among
the Jewish people just how Christ could give them His commandments
to be kept, for they did not know the divinity of the Son of God. ‘Then
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say unto you; except you eat the
flesh of the Son of man” ’—that is, unless you keep the command¬
ments of the Son of God—‘ “and drink his blood” ’—that is, unless you
accept the spiritual intent of the New Testament—‘ “you shall not have
life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath ever¬
lasting life, and I will raise him up in the Last Day. For my flesh is
meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” ’18 Elsewhere Christ says:
‘My meat is to do the will of my Father who sent me, that I may perfect
his work’;17 and again, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,
abideth in me, and I in him.’18 Truly, therefore, false priests eat not
the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ nor drink His blood, because they
abide not in the Lord Jesus. Accordingly, the Blessed John says in his
first Epistle: ‘But he that keepeth His word, in him in very deed the
charity of God is perfected, and by this we know that we are in Him.
He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also to walk, even as
He walked.’18
“Of this bread, we believe, is it written in the Gospel of the Blessed
Matthew: ‘And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread’20—that is.
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) 471

the spiritual commandments of the Law and the prophets—‘and blessed’

—that is, He praised and confirmed them—‘and broke’—that is, He
expounded them spiritually—‘and gave to his disciples’—that is, He
instructed them to keep them spiritually—‘and said, “Take ye” ’—that
is, keep them—‘ “and eat” ’—that is, preach to others. (Hence, it was
said to the Blessed John the Evangelist, ‘Take the book, and eat it up,’
and so forth; ‘and he [the angel] said to me, “Thou must prophesy
again to many nations, and peoples, and tongues, and kings.” ’)21 ‘This
is my body’—here He says of the bread, ‘This is my body’; earlier He
said, ‘And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the
world.’22 He said, as we believe, ‘This is my body’ (or my flesh) in
reference to the commandments of the Law and the prophets inter¬
preted in a spiritual sense, as though He were saying: There am I, there
dwell I. Therefore, the Apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians
says: ‘The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the com¬
munion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it
not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one
bread, one body, all that partake of one bread’23 and of one chalice,
that is, of one spiritual meaning of the Law, the prophets, and the New
Testament. And again: ‘For I have received of the Lord that which also
I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he
was betrayed, took bread and, giving thanks, broke, and said, “Take
ye, and eat; this is my body, which shall be delivered for you” ’—as
though He were saying: These spiritual commandments of the Old
Testament are my body, which for you is given unto the people. “ ‘This
do for the commemoration of me.” In like manner also the chalice,
after He had supped, saying, “This chalice is the new testament in my
blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration
of me.” ’24 Herein is the understanding of ‘supersubstantial bread.’
“Then follows, ‘Give us this day’—that is, in this time of grace, or
while we are in this temporal life, give us Thy power, that we may be
worthy to fulfill the law of Thy Son, Jesus Christ.
“ ‘And forgive us our debts’—that is, charge not against us, who
seek to observe the commandments of Thy Son, our sins of commission
or omission.
“ ‘As we forgive our debtors’—that is, as we forgive them that perse¬
cute and do evil unto us.
“ ‘And lead us not into temptation’—that is, permit us not, after we
472 Catharist Literature

undertake to keep Thy law, to be led further into temptation. For, truly,
there is a carnal temptation and a diabolical temptation. The diabolical
is that which proceeds from the heart and the prompting of the devil,
for example, sin, evil thoughts, hatred, and the like. The carnal is that
which springs from human nature, such as hunger, thirst, cold, and
the like; these we cannot avoid. Whence the Apostle says, in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘Let no temptation take hold on you but such
as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted
above that which you are able, but will make also with temptation
issue, that you may be able to bear it.’25
“ ‘But deliver us from evil,’ that is, from the devil, who is the
tempter of the faithful, and from his works.
“ ‘For Thine is the kingdom.’ This phrase is said to be in the Greek
and Hebrew texts,26 as though one were saying: For this is the reason
why Thou mayest do unto us that for which we pray, for we are Thy
people.
“ ‘And the power,’ as though one were saying: Thou hast the power
to bring us to salvation.
“ ‘And the glory’—that is, praise and honor is Thine, if this Thou do
unto Thy people.
“ ‘Forever,’ that is, over divinely created beings.27
“ ‘Amen,’ that is, without fail.
“Now, you must understand, if you would receive this prayer, that it
is needful for you to repent of all your sins and to forgive all men, for
in the Gospel Christ says, ‘But if you will not forgive men their sins,
neither will your Father forgive your offenses.’28 Also, it behooves you
to resolve in your heart that, if God grants you the grace to receive it,
you will keep this holy prayer throughout your whole lifetime, according
to the usage of the Church of God, in obedience and chastity,29 and in
all other good virtues which God shall deign to grant unto you. Where¬
fore we pray the good Lord, who granted unto the disciples of Jesus
Christ the power to receive this prayer with steadfastness, that He grant
unto you the strength to receive it with steadfastness to His honor and
your salvation. Have mercy upon us.”
Then let the prior (ordinatus) take the Book 30 from the hands of the
believer and say, “John” (if he is so named), “is it your will to receive
this holy prayer as it has been expounded and to keep it throughout
your whole lifetime, in chastity, truth, and humility, and in all other
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) 473
good virtues which God may deign to grant unto you?”
And let the believer answer: “Yes, it is. Pray to the Holy Father that
He grant His strength unto me.”
And let the prior say, “May God grant you the grace to receive it to
His honor and your salvation.”
On the Ministry of the Church.—Then let the prior say to the be¬
liever, “Say the Prayer with me, word for word, and say the Pardon
(perdonum) as this man says it.” And let the believer repeat the words
of him who stands beside the prior.31 Then let the prior begin the
Pardon. Thereafter, let him say the Prayer as is the custom. When the
Prayer and Grace are finished, let the believer say with an obeisance
before the prior, “Bless us; have mercy upon us. Amen. Let it be done
unto us, Lord, according to Thy word.”
And let the prior say, “May the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
forgive all your sins.”
And let the believer then rise. Let the prior say: “From God and
from us, from the Church and its holy order,32 and from its holy com¬
mandments and disciples, may you have the power to say this prayer
at your food and drink, by day and night, alone and in company, as is
the custom of the Church of Jesus Christ; and you must never eat or
drink without this prayer. If you are in default in this, something which
you will announce to the prior of the Church as soon as you can, you
shall bear that penance which he chooses to lay upon you. May the true
Lord God give you the grace to keep this, to His honor and your
salvation.”
Then let the believer make three obeisances, saying: “Bless us, bless
us, bless us; have mercy upon us. May the Lord God render you rich
reward for this good thing which you have done unto me for the love
of God.”
Then if the believer is not to be consoled, it is in order to undertake
the Service and to proceed to the Peace.33

[The Ministration of the Consolamentum]

If the believer is to receive the consolamentum immediately after he
has received the Prayer, then this believer should approach, accompanied
by the one who is the elder (ancianus) of his house. They should make
three obeisances before the prior and pray for the good34 of this be¬
liever. This done, the prior and the Christian men and women should
474 Catharist Literature

say seven prayers to God, asking that the prior be heard; and when
this has been done, let the prior say: “Brothers and sisters, if I have said
or done anything against God and my salvation, pray to the Lord God
for me, that He have mercy upon me.”
And let the elder who stands beside the prior say, “May the Holy
Father, just, true, and merciful, Who in heaven and on earth hath the
power to forgive sins, forgive you and have mercy on all your sins in
this world, and in the future may He have pity on you.”
Then let the prior say, “Amen. Let it be done unto us, Lord, accord¬
ing to Thy word.”
Then let all the Christian men and women make three obeisances,
saying: “Bless us, bless us, bless us; have mercy upon us. If we have
said or done anything against God and our salvation, pray to the God of
mercy that He have pity on us. Bless us; have mercy upon us.”
And let the prior answer: “[May] the Holy Father, just, true, and
merciful,” and so on, just as was said earlier.
On Accepting the Book.—When this has been done, let the prior
arrange a table before himself. Then let the believer approach the prior
and take the Book from the hands of the prior with three obeisances, as
he did at the [ministration of the] Prayer, as set forth above.
Then let the prior say: “John, is it your will to receive the spiritual
baptism of Jesus Christ and pardon for your sins, through the supplica¬
tions of good Christians, together with the imposition of hands, and to
keep this throughout your whole lifetime in chastity and in humility,
and in all other exemplary virtues which God may deign to grant unto
you?”
And let the believer answer: “Yes, it is. Pray God to grant His
strength unto me.”
Let the prior say: “May God grant you the grace to receive it to His
honor and to your salvation.”
On the Sermon by the Prior.—Then let the prior begin to preach in
this way, if he so chooses:
“O John, you must understand that now, for a second time, you
come before God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit as you come before the
Church of God, as was disclosed previously through the Scriptures, and
you must understand that you are in the presence of the Church of God
to receive pardon for your sins, through the supplications of good
Christians, together with the imposition of hands. This is called the
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) 475

spiritual baptism of Jesus Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as
John the Baptist says, ‘I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but
He that shall come after me is mightier than I, Whose shoes I am not
worthy to bear; He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire’35—
that is, He will wash and cleanse you in spiritual understanding and
good works. By this baptism is meant the spiritual rebirth of which
Christ said to Nicodemus, ‘Unless a man be bom again of water and
the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’38 Baptism
means a laving or ‘superbaptism.’37 Now, one must understand that
Christ did not come to wash the filth of the flesh, but to cleanse the filth
of God’s souls that have been soiled by contact with evil spirits. Thus,
God said to the people of Israel through the prophet Baruch: ‘Hear, O
Israel, the commandments of life; give ear, that thou mayest learn wis¬
dom. How happeneth it, O Israel, that thou art in thy enemies’ land?
Thou art grown old in a strange country, thou art defiled with the dead,
thou art counted with them that go down into hell! Thou hast forgotten
the fountain of life and of wisdom, for if thou hadst walked in the
way of God, thou hadst surely dwelt in peace forever.’38 And David
says: ‘O God, the heathens are come into Thy inheritance; they have
defiled Thy holy temple; they have made Jerusalem as a place to keep
fruit.’39 And in this way have the people of God been defiled by con¬
tact with evil spirits. Whence it has pleased the Most Holy Father to
wash His people of the filth of sins through the baptism of His Son,
Jesus Christ, as the Blessed Apostle says to the Ephesians: ‘Husbands,
love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered Himself
up for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in
the word of life, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church,
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy,
and without blemish.*40
“And so, through the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power
of the Most Holy Father, the disciples of Jesus Christ were cleansed of
the filth of their sins by His spiritual baptism. They received strength
and authority from the Lord Jesus Christ, as He had received it from
his Most Holy Father, so that they too might cleanse other sinners
through His baptism. Thus, in the Gospel of the Blessed John one finds
the words of Jesus Christ to His disciples after His resurrection: 4 “As
the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” When he had said this, he
breathed on them, and he said to them, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.
476 Catharist Literature

Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins
you shall retain, they are retained.’”41 And in the Gospel of the Blessed
Matthew, He says to His disciples: ‘Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you
shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you
shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to
you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth concerning anything
whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is
in heaven.’42 And again: ‘ “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
But they said, “Some John the Baptist, and some Elijah, and others
Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Jesus saith to them, “But who do you
say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art Christ, the
Son of the living God.” And Jesus answering, said to him, “Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven” ’—to you on behalf of all. “And whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” ’43 And
again, He says to His disciples: ‘Go ye into the whole world and
preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these
signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out
devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents;
and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they
shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.’44 And
again: ‘The eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where
Jesus had appointed them. And seeing Him, they adored; but some
doubted. And Jesus, coming, spoke to them, saying, “All power is given
to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com¬
manded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consum¬
mation of the world.” ’45
“No wise man believes that the Church of Jesus Christ performs this
baptism by imposition of hands without manifest proof from Scripture
nor imagines that the Church of God performs this consecration out of
the presumption and human intuition of its members or by unknown
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) All
and unseen inspiration of spirits. No, the disciples of Jesus Christ
actually went forth and stood with the Lord Jesus Christ, and they re¬
ceived from Him the authority to baptize and to forgive sins. So today
do true Christians, who, as heirs of the disciples, in due order received
from the Church of God the power actually to perform this baptism
of the imposition of hands and to forgive sins. For it is plainly found in
the New Testament Scriptures that after His ascension the disciples of
Jesus Christ actually employed this ministry of the imposition of hands,
as is clearly discussed in the Scriptures. In the Acts of the Apostles, it is
written: ‘Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard
that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter
and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Spirit; for He was not as yet come upon any of
them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then
they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.’46
And again: ‘And it came to pass while Apollos was at Corinth, that
Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and
found certain disciples. And he said to them, “Have ye received the
Holy Spirit since ye believed?” But they said to him, “We have not so
much as heard whether there be a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “In what
then were you baptized?” Who said, “In John’s baptism.” Then Paul
said, “John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying
that they should believe in Him who was to come after him, that is to
say, in Jesus.” Having heard these things, they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on
them, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke with tongues and
prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.’47 And in the same
book, Christ says to Ananias, ‘Arise, and go into the street that is
called Strait, and seek in the house of Judas one named Saul of Tarsus.
For behold he prayeth. (And he saw a man named Ananias coming in,
and putting hands upon him, that he might receive his sight),’ and so
forth. ‘And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And
laying his hands upon him, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath
sent me, He that appeared to thee in the way as thou earnest, that thou
mayest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And im¬
mediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales and he received his
sight, and rising up, he was baptized. And when he had taken meat, he
was strengthened.’48 And again: ‘And it happened that the father of
478 Catharist Literature

Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux; to whom Paul entered
in, and when he had prayed and laid his hands on him, he healed him.’49
And to Timothy, the Apostle says, ‘For which cause I admonish thee that
thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my
hands’;50 and again, ‘Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be
partaker of other men’s sins.’51 And to the Hebrews, the same Apostle
speaks ‘of the doctrine of baptisms and imposition of hands.’52
“And of this baptism the Blessed Peter, we believe, says in the first
Epistle: ‘In the days of Noah, when the ark was a building, wherein a
few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being
of the like form now saveth you also, not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh but the examination of a good conscience toward God by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’68 But this ought to be pondered to
some extent, because those who were saved in Noah’s ark, according to
the story in the Old Testament, had not really been saved, as it seems,
because it is found that Noah, with his sons, wives, and the living things,
went out from the ark of his God and planted a vineyard, drank wine,
and was made drunk, fell down, and showed his shame. He cursed his
son, Canaan, saying, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall
be unto his brethren’54—he who was one of those saved from the ark. It
is also found in the Old Testament that those who went out from that ark
»

and their descendants committed many and most shameful misdeeds, and
afterward they endured great want and severe hardships, with the result
that they killed each other. Therefore, we believe that the Blessed Peter
spoke not of that Noah of the Old Testament nor of that ark, but spoke
of the ark of the testament which the Lord made for the salvation of
His people of which the Apostle says to the Hebrews: ‘By faith Noah,
having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were
not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house;
by the which he condemned the world and was instituted heir of the
justice which is by faith.’55 And Jesus the son of Sirach says: ‘Noah was
found perfect and in the time of wrath he was made a reconciliation.
Therefore was there a remnant left to the earth when the flood came.
The covenants of the world were made with him, that all flesh should
no more be destroyed with the flood.’56 And of this Noah the Blessed
Peter spoke in the second Epistle, we believe: ‘And spared not the
original world, but preserved Noah, the eighth person, the preacher of
justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.’67 What is
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) 479
here expressed is that the Holy Father granted the Law and the Old
Testament unto His people. All those who entered into that ark—that
is to say, all who have kept to that testament—have been saved. And
so, too, will be saved all who enter into the ark of the New Testament
and remain therein.
With regard to this, well could the Blessed Peter say, ‘Whereunto
baptism being of the like form now saveth you,’58 as though he were
saying: Just as those had been saved through that dispensation (ordina-
mentum), even so through the baptism of Jesus Christ, Christians are
saved by a like form. With this agrees what the prophet David says, ‘For
God is our [king] before ages; he hath wrought salvation in the midst
of the earth.’59 And Jeremiah says, ‘The harvest is past, the summer is
ended, and we are not saved.’60 And of Christ the Apostle says to the
Hebrews: ‘For it became Him for whom are all things and by whom
are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the
author of their salvation by His passion.’61 And [the Blessed Peter says]:
‘Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh saves us, but the examina¬
tion of a good conscience toward God,’62 as though he were saying:
Without this baptism we cannot be saved through the works of the
Church, that is, without the examination of a good conscience which
is made toward God by the ministers of Christ. So the Apostle says, in
the first Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘And I show unto you yet a more
excellent way. If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and
have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all
knowledge, and if I should have all faith so that I could remove moun¬
tains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if 1 should distribute all
my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned,
and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.’63 This means [that nothing
avails] without this baptism of the spirit of charity. True Christians, then,
taught by the primitive Church, actually perform this ministry of the
imposition of hands without which, we believe, no one can be saved.”
On Reception of the Spiritual Baptism.—“Accordingly, you must
understand that this is the reason for your presence here before the
Church of Jesus Christ: It is the occasion of your receiving this holy
baptism of the imposition of hands and receiving pardon for your sins
by the examination of a good conscience which is made toward God by
good Christians. Therefore, you should know that even as you are in.
480 Catharist Literature

the temporal sense in the presence of the Church of God, where

spiritually dwell the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so spiritually
you should be with your soul in the presence of God, of Christ, and of
the Holy Spirit, prepared to receive this holy consecration of Jesus
Christ. And even as you took into your hands the Book, in which are
written the commandments, the precepts, and the admonitions of Christ,
so, spiritually, you must admit the law of Christ into the works of your
soul, to keep it throughout your whole lifetime, as is written: ‘Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole
soul and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor
as thyself.’ 64
“Consequently, you must understand how necessary it is that you
love God in truth, in kindliness, in humility, in mercy, in chastity, and
in other exemplary virtues, since it is written: ‘Chastity makes a man
near to God; in like manner, however, corruption draws him away’; and
again, ‘Chastity and virginity bringeth near to the angels.’66 And Solo¬
mon says, ‘Incorruption bringeth near to God.’86
“Also, you must understand how necessary it is that you be faithful
and lawful in things of the world67 and in things of the spirit, for if you
have not been faithful in worldly things we do not believe that you can
be faithful in things spiritual, nor do we believe that you can attain
salvation, for the Apostle says, ‘Nor thieves shall possess the kingdom
of God.’68 Then, too, you must make this commitment and promise to
God: that you will never commit murder, adultery, or theft, open or
secret, nor will you, of your own will, on any occasion, not even in
matters of life and death, take an oath. For David says, ‘I will pay my
vows to the Lord before all his people. Precious in the sight of the Lord
is the death of his saints.’69 Moreover, you will make this commitment to
God: that you will never, knowingly or of your own will, eat cheese,
milk, the flesh of birds, of creeping things, or of animals, prohibited by
the Church of God.
“Also, through the righteousness of Christ, it behooves you to endure
hunger, thirst, dissension, persecution, and death; all these will you en¬
dure for the love of God and for your salvation.
“Also [you must promise] that you will, to the best of your ability, be
obedient to God and to the Church, at the will of God and his Church,
and that you will never put aside this gift [of spiritual baptism]—if the
Lord shall grant unto you the grace to receive it—because of anything
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) 481

that may befall you, for the Apostle says to the Hebrews, ‘We are not
the children of withdrawing unto perdition, but of faith to the saving of
the soul.’70 And again, in his second Epistle to Timothy, he says, ‘No
man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses,
that he may please Him to whom he hath engaged himself.’71 And in
the Gospel of Luke [Christ] says, ‘No man putting his hand to the
plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.’72 And Jesus
the son of Sirach says: ‘He that washeth himself after touching the
dead, if he toucheth him again, what doth his washing avail? So a man
that fasteth for his sins and doth the same again, what doth his humbling
himself profit him? Who will hear his prayer?’73 And the Blessed Peter
says in his second Epistle: ‘For if, flying from the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they
be again entangled in them and overcome, their latter state is become
unto them worse than their former. For it had been better for them
not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to
turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.
For that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned
to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the
mire.’74
“From this you must understand that if you shall receive this gift of
God, it behooves you to hold it in purity of heart and mind throughout
your whole lifetime.
“Also, let no one conclude that through this baptism, which you
receive in understanding, you disdain the other baptism—either Christ¬
ian observance or any good thing which you have done or said up to
the present moment; on the other hand, you must understand that it is
fitting for you to receive this holy consecration of Christ as a supple¬
ment to that which was insufficient for your salvation.75
“Now may the true Lord God grant you grace to receive this good, to
His honor and your salvation. Have mercy upon us.”
On the Ceremony of the Consolamentum.—Then let the prior take
the Book from the hands of the believer and say: “John” (if he be so
named), “is it your will to receive this holy baptism of Jesus Christ as
it has been explained and to hold it in purity of heart and mind through¬
out your whole lifetime and not to fail in it for any reason?”
And let John answer: “Yes, it is. Pray to the good Lord for me, to
give me His grace.”
482 Catharist Literature

And let the prior say, “May the true Lord God grant you the grace
to receive this gift, to His honor and to your good.”
Then let the believer stand, make an obeisance before the prior, and
let him repeat the words of the elder who stands beside the prior, saying:
“I come to God, to you, to the Church, and to your holy order to receive
pardon and mercy for all my sins which were committed or given effect
in me at any time up to this moment. Pray to God for me that He
forgive me. Bless us; have mercy upon us.”
Then let the prior answer: “From God, from us, from the Church,
from its holy order, and from its holy commandments and disciples,
may you receive pardon and mercy for all the sins committed or given
effect in you at any time up to this moment. May the Lord God of
mercy forgive you and lead you to eternal life.”
And let the believer say, “Amen. Let it be done unto us, Lord, ac¬
cording to Thy word.”
Then let the believer, rising, place his hands on the table which
stands before the prior, and let the prior hold the Book upon the be¬
liever’s head, and let all the other consecrated persons and Christians
who are present place their right hands upon him. And let the prior say,
“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
And let him who is beside the prior say “Amen,” and let all the
others repeat it aloud.
Then let the prior say: “Bless us; have mercy upon us. Let it be done
unto us. Lord, according to Thy word. May the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit forgive you and have mercy on all your sins. Let us adore
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let us adore the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. Holy Father, just, true, and merciful, forgive Thy servant,
receive him into Thy righteousness. ‘Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy name,’ ” and so on. Let him repeat the Lord’s Prayer
five times aloud and then “Let us adore,” thrice. And afterward, let him
say the Lord’s Prayer once and then “Let us adore the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit” thrice. And then, “In the beginning was the
Word,”76 and so on. When the Gospel has been read, let him thrice say
“Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and then one
prayer. Then let him say “Let us adore” thrice and proceed to the
Grace.77
57. Catharist Rituals (Part A) 483
And let the Christian kiss the Book and thereafter make three obei¬
sances, saying: “Bless us, bless us, bless us; have mercy upon us. May
God render you rich reward for this good thing which you have done
unto me for the love of God.”
Then let the consecrated persons, the Christian men and women,
receive the Service, as is the usage of the Church.
Let all good Christians pray to God on behalf of him who wrote
these instructions. Amen. Thanks be to God.

B. THE RITUAL TRANSLATED FROM THE PROVENCAL TEXT

circa 1250-1280

[Phrases for Worship]1

Bless us; have mercy upon us. Amen. Let it be done unto us ac¬
cording to Thy word. May the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
&

forgive all your sins. Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. (Three times.)
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom
come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day
our supersubstantial bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors; and lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil.8 For
Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever.
Amen.8
Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Three times.)
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Bless us; have
*

mercy upon us. Let it be done unto us according to Thy word. May the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit forgive you all your sins.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing. What was
made in Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light
shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was
a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a
witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through
him. He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. That
was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this
484 Catharist Literature

world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the
world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received
him not. But as many as received Him, He gave them power to be
made the sons of God, to them that believe in His name; who are born
not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of
God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; and we saw
His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full
of grace and truth. John beareth witness of Him, and crieth out, saying,
“This was He of whom I spoke. He that shall come after me is prefer¬
red before me, because He was before me. And of His fullness we all
have received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses;
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. ” 4

[The Service]
We have come before God and before you and before the order of
the Holy Church to receive the Service, pardon and penance for all our
sins which we have committed in speech or thought, or effected from
our birth to this moment. We ask mercy of God and of you, that you
pray for us to the Holy Father of mercy to pardon us.
Let us adore God and acknowledge all our sins and our many grave
•

offenses toward the Father, the Son, and the honored Holy Spirit, the
honored Holy Gospels, and the honored holy apostles; by prayer and
faith and by the salvation of all righteous, glorious Christians, and of
blessed ancestors at rest, and of brothers here present, and we do so
before Thee, Holy Lord, in order that Thou may forgive us for all
wherein we have sinned. Bless us; have mercy upon us*
For many are our sins wherein we offend every day, night and day,
in word, in deed, and by thought, voluntarily and involuntarily, and
more by our will which evil spirits arouse in us, in the flesh in which we
are clothed. Bless us; have mercy upon us.
But, whereas the holy word of God teaches us, in the same way that
the holy apostles and our spiritual brothers declare unto us, that we
should put aside every desire of the flesh and every impurity, and that
we should do the will of God by accomplishing perfect good, yet we,
lax servants, not only do not the will of God as is fitting but more often
we fulfill the desires of the flesh and the concerns of the world, thus
doing harm to our souls. Bless us; have mercy upon us.
We go among worldly people, we mingle, talk, and eat with them,
57. Catharist Rituals (Part B) 485

and thus we sin in many things so that we harm our brothers and our
souls. Bless us; have mercy upon us.
With our tongues we fall into idle words, into vain conversations, into
laughter, into mockeries and malicious acts, into detraction of brothers
and sisters whom we are unworthy to judge, nor are we worthy to
condemn their offenses. Among Christians we are sinners. Bless us; have
mercy upon us.
The Service which we have received we have not kept as we should,
neither the fast nor the Prayer. We have transgressed our days, we have
betrayed our hours.6 While we are at holy prayer our minds turn away
to carnal desires, to worldly concerns, wherefore in that hour we scarce¬
ly know what thing we offer to the Father of the Just. Bless us; have
mercy upon us.
O thou Holy and Good Lord, we confess to Thee all those things
which have befallen us, in our senses and in our thought, and all the
multitude of our sins we place on the mercy of God and on the Holy
Prayer and on the Holy Gospel, for many are our sins. Bless us; have
mercy upon us.
O Lord, judge and condemn the imperfections of the flesh. Have no
pity on the flesh, bom of corruption, but show mercy to the spirit which
is imprisoned. Direct for us the days, the hours, and the obeisances,7
the fasts, the prayers, and the preachings, as is the custom of Good
Christians, that we be not judged or condemned among felons at the
Day of Judgment. Bless us; have mercy upon us.

[The Ministration of the Prayer]

If a believer is in abstinence and if the Christians are agreed to ad¬
minister the Prayer to him, let them wash their hands, and the believers
likewise, if there be any. Then let one of the Good Men, he who stands
next to the elder (ancia), make three obeisances to the elder. Then let
him prepare a table, making three obeisances thereafter. And let him
put a cloth on the table and make three more obeisances. And let him
put the Book on the cloth. Then let him say, Bless us; have mercy upon
us. And let the believer make his melioramentum and take the Book
from the hand of the elder. And the elder should exhort him and preach
to him with suitable scriptural verses. And if the believer is named
Peter, let him speak to him thus:
“Peter, you must understand that when you are before the Church of
486 Catharist Literature

God you are in the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
For the Church signifies a gathering together, and where there are true
Christians, there are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the
divine Scriptures attest. For Christ has said in the Gospel of St. Matthew:
‘Where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am
I in the midst of them’;8 and in the Gospel of St. John, He says, ‘If
anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him,
and we will come to him and will make our abode with him.’* And
St. Paul says in the second Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘You are the
temple of the living God; as God saith through Isaiah, “I will dwell in
them, and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be
my people.” Wherefore, “Go out from among them, and be ye sepa¬
rate,” saith the Lord, “and touch not the unclean thing; and I will re¬
ceive you, and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” ’10 And in another place, he [Paul]
says, ‘Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me?’11 And in the
first Epistle to Timothy, he says: ‘These things I write to thee, hoping
that I shall come to thee shortly but, if I tarry long, that thou mayest
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which
is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.’12
And the same Apostle says to the Hebrews, ‘But Christ is as the Son in
his own house, which house are we.’18
“Let the Spirit of God be with the faithful of Jesus Christ. Christ so
declares in the Gospel of St. John: ‘If you love me, keep my command¬
ments. And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another
Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the spirit of truth,
whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not nor knoweth
Him; but you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you and
shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.’14
And in the Gospel of St. Matthew, He says, ‘Behold, I am with you all
days, even to the consummation of the world.’15 And St. Paul says in
the first Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘Know you not that you are the
temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any
man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple
of God is holy, which you are.’16 So also Christ explains in the Gospel of
St. Matthew, ‘For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
that speaketh in you.’17 And St. John in his Epistle says, ‘In this we
know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of
57. Catharist Rituals (Part B) 487

his spirit.’18 And St. Paul says to the Galatians, ‘Because you are sons
of God, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying,
“Aba! Father!” ’»
“Thus it must be understood that the presentation which you make
before the sons of Jesus Christ confirms the faith and preaching of the
Church of God as Holy Scriptures give us to understand it. For the
people of God departed in former times from their Lord God. They de¬
parted from the counsel and will of their Holy Father, as a result of the
deception of evil spirits and submission to them. For these and many
other reasons, is understanding given that the Holy Father desires to
have compassion on His people and to receive them into His peace and
concord through the advent of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Hence, this is the occasion of your presence here before the disciples
of Jesus Christ,20 where spiritually dwell the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, as was previously disclosed: that you may receive this
holy prayer which the Lord Jesus Christ gave unto His disciples, so
that your supplications and your prayers may be heard by our Holy
Father. This is the reason why you must understand, if you would
receive this holy prayer, that it is needful for you to repent of all your
sins and to forgive all men. For our Lord Jesus Christ says, ‘If you will
not forgive men their sins, neither will your Father forgive your of¬
fenses.’ 21
“Furthermore, it behooves you to resolve in your heart that, if God
grants you the grace to receive it, you will keep this holy prayer through¬
out your whole lifetime, according to the usage of the Church of God,
in chastity, in truth, and in all the other good virtues which God shall
deign to grant unto you. Wherefore we pray the good Lord, Who grant¬
ed unto the disciples of Jesus Christ the power to receive this holy
prayer with steadfastness, that He grant unto you also the grace to
receive it with steadfastness, to His honor and your salvation. Have
you must do penance therefor.”
And let the believer say: “I receive it from God, from you, and from
And then let the elder say: “This holy prayer we deliver unto you,
that you may receive it from God, from us, and from the Church, and
that you may have the power to say it throughout your whole lifetime,
by day and by night, alone and in company, and that you may never eat
or drink without first saying this prayer. And if you should fail therein,
you must do penance therefor.’”
488 Catharist Literature
And let the believer say: ‘I receive it from God, from you, and from
the Church.9’ Then let him make his melioramentum and give thanks.
And then let the Christians complete a Double with obeisances, and let
the believer do the same.

[The Ministration of the Consolamentum]

If he is to receive the consolamentum forthwith, let him perform his
melioramentum and take the Book from the hand of the elder. And let
the elder exhort him and preach to him with suitable scriptural verses
and in such words as are proper for the consolamentum. Let him speak
thus:
“Peter, you wish to receive the spiritual baptism by which the Holy
Spirit is given in the Church of God, together with the Holy Prayer and
the imposition of hands by Good Men. Of this baptism our Lord Jesus
Christ says in the Gospel of St. Matthew to His disciples: ‘Going there¬
fore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you
all days, even to the consummation of the world.’22 And in the Gospel
of St. Mark, He says: ‘Go ye into the whole world and preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’23 And in the
Gospel of St. John, He says to Nicodemus: ‘Amen, amen, I say to thee,
unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.’24 And John the Baptist spoke of this
baptism when he said, ‘I baptize with water but He that shall come
after me is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy
to loose. He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.’25 And Jesus
says in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘For John indeed baptized with water,
but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’26
“This holy baptism with the imposition of hands was instituted by
Jesus Christ, according to that which St. Luke recounts, and He says
that His friends shall perform it, as St. Mark relates, ‘They shall lay
their hands upon the sick and they shall recover.’27 Ananias admin¬
istered this baptism to St. Paul when the latter was converted and after¬
ward Paul and Barnabas administered it in many places. And St. Peter
and St. John administered it to the Samaritans, as St. Luke tells in the
Acts of the Apostles: ‘Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem,
57. Catharist Rituals (Part B) 489
had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto
them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them,
that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He was not as yet come upon
any of them. Then they laid their hands upon them and they received
the Holy Spirit.’28 This holy baptism, by which the Holy Spirit is given,
the Church of God has preserved from the apostles until this time and it
has passed from Good Men to Good Men until the present moment, and
it will continue to do so until the end of the world.
“And you must understand that power is given to the Church of God
to bind and to loose, to pardon sins and to retain them, as Christ says
in the Gospel of St. John: ‘ “As the Father hath sent me, I also send
you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them, and he said to them,
“Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” ’2ft
And in the Gospel of St. Matthew, He says to Simon Peter: ‘And I say
to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind
upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’ 30And ‘Again I say to
you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth concerning anything
whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who
is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them.’31 And in another place He says,
‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils.’32 And
in the Gospel of St. John, He says, ‘He that believeth in me, the works
that I do he also shall do.’33 And in the Gospel of St. Mark, He says:
‘These signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast
out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up ser¬
pents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.’34 And
in the Gospel of St. Luke, He says, ‘Behold, I have given you power to
tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy;
and nothing shall hurt you.’35
“And if you have the will to receive this strength and power, you must
keep all the commandments of Christ and of the New Testament to
the utmost of your ability. Know that He has commanded that a man
should not commit adultery, or kill, or lie; should swear no oath, nor
490 Catharist Literature

pilfer or steal; he should not do to others that which he would not wish
done to himself; he should forgive one who does evil to him and love
his enemies; he should bless and pray for those who persecute and
calumniate him; and if anyone strike him on one cheek, he should offer
the other to him also; if anyone take away his coat (la goneld), he
should let go unto him also his cloak; he should judge not nor con¬
demn.86 And with these are many other commandments which are laid
down for His Church by the Lord.
“And likewise, you must hate this world and its works and the things
which are of this world. For St. John says in his Epistle: ‘Dearly be¬
loved, love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any
man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all
that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupis¬
cence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is
of the world. And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence
thereof; but he that doth the will of God abideth forever.’87 And Christ
says to the nations: ‘The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth be¬
cause I give testimony of it, that the works thereof are evil.’38 And in
the book of Solomon is it written, ‘I have seen all the things which are
done under the sun; and they are all vanities and torments of the
spirit.’89 And Jude the brother of James, says for our instruction in
his Epistle, ‘Hating also the spotted garment which is carnal.’40 Heed¬
ing these scriptural verses and many others, you must keep the com¬
mandments of God and hate this world. And if you do well to the end,
we have hope that your soul will have eternal life.”
And let the believer say: “I have this will. Pray God for me to give
me His strength.”
Then let one of the Good Men make his melioramentum with the
believer before the elder and say: “Have mercy upon us. Good Chris¬
tians, we pray you for the love of God to grant this good which God
has given you unto this our friend.”
Then let the believer make his melioramentum and say: “Have
mercy upon us. For all the sins which I have done, in word, thought, or
deed, I ask forgiveness from God, from the Church, and from you all.”
Let the Christians say: “May they be forgiven you by God, by us,
and by the Church; we pray God to forgive you.”
And then let them give him the consolamentum. Let the elder take
the Book and place it on the believer’s head, and the other Good Men
57. Catharist Rituals (Part B) 491

place each his right hand on him. Then let them say the Pardon41 and the
Let us adore42 thrice, and then, Holy Father, receive Thy servant in
Thy righteousness and bestow Thy grace and Thy Holy Spirit upon him.
Then let them pray to God with the Prayer and let him who conducts
the service say the Six48 in a low voice. When the Six is finished, let
him say Let us adore thrice, the Prayer once in full voice, and then the
Gospel. When the Gospel has been read, let them say Let us adore
thrice, the Grace, and the Pardon. Then they should perform the Act
of Peace44 with each other and with the Book. If there be believers
present, let them perform the Act of Peace also. Let women believers,
if there are any present, perform the Act of Peace with the Book and
with each other. And then let them pray to God with a Double,45 with
obeisances. And thus they will have administered [the consolamentum].4®

[Rules of Conduct for Various Occasions]

The office of leading a Double or of saying the Prayer should not be
confided to a layman.
If Christians go into a dangerous place, let them pray to God using
the Grace. And if one of them travels on horseback, let him say a
Double. He should say the Prayer when embarking in a boat, when
entering a town, or when crossing a stream by a plank or a dangerous
bridge. When Christians encounter a man with whom they must have
speech while they are praying to God, if they have [said] eight prayers,
these can be counted as a Single;47 if they have finished sixteen, they
can be accounted the Double. If they find some personal belonging along
the road, let them not touch it unless they know that they can return it.
If they see that persons to whom the object may be returned have
passed that way ahead of them, let them take it to return it if they can.
If this is not possible, they should put it back in the place where it was
found. If they happen upon an animal or a bird in a trap, let them not
trouble themselves about it. And if a Christian wants to drink during the
day, he should have prayed to God twice or more after eating. And if
Christians drink after the evening Double, let them perform another
Double. And if there are any believers present, they should stand while
the Christians say the Prayer before drinking. And if a Christian man
prays to God with Christian women, let him always lead in the Prayer.
And if there is with the Christian women a believer to whom the
Prayer has been administered, let him go apart and say it by himself.
492 Catharist Literature

[The Ministration of the Consolamentum to the Sick]

If Christians to whom the ministry of the Church is entrusted receive
a message from a believer who is sick, they should visit him and inquire
privately how he has borne himself toward the Church since he re¬
ceived the faith; whether he is in any way in debt to the Church or has
done it any injury. If he owes it any debt and can pay, he should do so.
«

If he is unwilling to do this, let him not be received. For if one prays to

God on behalf of a lawbreaker or a dishonest man, the prayer can be
of no avail. But he should not be turned away if he is unable to pay.
And the Christians should explain the abstinence and usages of the
Church and ask whether, provided he is received, he is willing to ob¬
serve them. This he should not promise unless he has the firmest in¬
tention of doing so. For St. John says that the portion of liars shall be
in a pool of fire and brimstone.48 And if he says that he feels himself
strong enough to endure all that abstinence, and if the Christians are
agreed to receive him, they shall impose abstinence on him as follows:
They shall ask him if he intends to refrain from lies and oaths and from
transgressing the other prohibitions of God, [if he] intends to hold to
the usages of the Church and the commandments of God and to keep
his body and his goods—all that he now has and all that he may acquire
at the disposal of God, of the Church, and at the service of Chris¬
tian men and women, from this time on and forever, to the utmost of his
ability. And if he says “Yes,” let them reply: “We impose this abstinence
upon you so that you may receive it from God, from us, and from the
Church, and so that you may observe it as long as you live. For if you
observe it well, together with your other obligations, we have hope that
your soul will have life.” And he should say, “I receive it from God,
from you, and from the Church.”
Then they should ask him if he wishes to receive the Prayer. If he
says “Yes,” let them clothe him in shirt and breeches, if this is possible,
and let them have him sit up, if he can raise his hands.40 And let them
put a tablecloth or other cloth on the bed in front of him, and put the
Book thereon, saying Bless us once, and Let us adore the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit three times. And he should take the Book from
the hand of the elder. And then, if the sick man is able to endure it, he
who is conducting the administration should exhort him and preach to
him with suitable scriptural texts. Then he should ask him, in regard to
his covenant (de la covenesa) with them, whether his heart is fixed
57. Catharist Rituals (Part B) 493
on holding to it and keeping it, as he has agreed. And if the answer is
“Yes,” let them have him confirm it. Then they should minister the
Prayer unto him and he should heed it carefully. And then let the elder
say to him: “This is the Prayer which Jesus Christ brought into this
world, Who taught it to the Good Men. You must never eat or drink
anything without first repeating this prayer. And if you should do so
through negligence, you must undergo penance therefor.” He should
reply, “I receive it from God, from you, and from the Church.” And
then let them give him the greeting used for women.50 And then they
should pray to God in a Double with obeisances, and again put the
Book before him. And he should say thrice Let us adore the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Then let him take the Book from the hand of the elder, who should
exhort him with scriptural texts and words such as are proper for the
consolamentum. And then the elder should ask if he has it in his heart to
keep and honor the covenant as he has agreed, and let them have him
confirm it.
Then the elder should take up the Book, and the sick man should bow
his head and say: “Have mercy on us. For all my sins of word or thought
or deed I ask pardon from God, from the Church, and from you all.”
And the Christians should answer, “May you have pardon from God,
from us, and from the Church; and we pray to God to pardon you.” And
then let them console him by placing their hands and the Book on his
head, saying: Bless us; have mercy upon us. Amen. Let it be done to us
according to Thy word. May the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
have mercy on you for all your sins. Let us adore the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit (saying this last three times). And then Holy Father, re-
ceive Thy servant in Thy justice and send Thy grace and Thy Holy Spirit
upon him; or, if it is a woman, they should say Holy Father, receive Thy
handmaiden in Thy justice and send Thy grace and Thy Holy Spirit
upon her. And then let them pray to God with the Prayer and say the
Six in a low voice, and, when the Six is finished, they should say three
times Let us adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the
Prayer once in full voice, and then the Gospel. When the Gospel has been
read, they should say three times Let us adore the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, and the Prayer once in full voice. And then let them give
him the greeting used for a man.51 And then they should perform the Act
of Peace among themselves and with the Book. And if there are believers,
494 Catharist Literature

men or women, present, let them perform the Act of Peace. And then
the Christians should ask for salvation and grant it.
And if the sick person dies, leaving them anything, or if he should give
them anything, they must not keep it for themselves or take possession
of it, but should put it at the disposal of the order. However, if the sick
person lives, the Christians should present him to the order and pray that
he receive the consolamentum again as soon as he can.52 And let him do
as he wishes.

58. A “Manichaean” Treatise

We translate here portions of a treatise by an Albigensian heretic. Though
the rest of the treatise is lost, these portions survived because Durand of
9

Huesca, the founder of the Poor Catholics and an enemy of the Cathars,
copied them into his Liber contra manicheos 1 in order to refute the errors
they contained. What part of the heretical work these nineteen excerpts
comprised cannot be estimated.2 The heretic, who gave no name to his sect,
expressed the views of the Albigenses in the dioceses of Albi, Toulouse, and
Carcassonne, according to Durand of Huesca,8 who had no doubt that the
author and his fellows were modern devotees of ancient errors; “Mani-
chaeans, that is, modern Cathars,” he calls them,4 and labels the work
before him a Manichaean treatise.5 Some of the qualities of the anonymous
heretic appear from his work: He had considerable biblical learning as welt
as skill in controversy on religious themes,6 and he presents himself as
spokesman for a group.7 The names of two persons who might have written
the treatise have been suggested.8 One possibility is William, the canon of
Nevers who fled in 1201 from the threat of prosecution as a heretic and
became a spokesman, under the name of Theodoric,9 for the Albigenses.
Or the author might have been Bartholomew of Carcassonne, who in 1223
was accused by a papal legate in Languedoc of being the agent of a heretical
“pope” seated in the Balkans.10 Since the Liber contra manicheos was com¬
posed about 1222-1223, the heretical work from which it quotes probably
was written about 1218-1222.11
The Catharist treatise was composed not as a polemic but as a statement
of faith, adroitly supported by scriptural quotations,12 which was perhaps
intended to gain converts.13 Its tenets are those of absolute dualism; on the
whole, they accord with the beliefs of the Albanenses of Italy at that time.14
More than casual reading is needed, however, to discern the particular
heretical tenets which the author believes are implicit in the passages he
selects from the Scriptures.15 The major theme is the existence of two crea¬
tions, good and evil, coeternal and entirely separate. The present material
and visible world and its creatures are in no way the work of God the
Father, but are the domain of Satan, who is the essence of sin; here angelic
beings are imprisoned as a result of an invasion of heaven. To save the lost
souls, Christ, the Son of God, became incarnate, not in this world but in a
58. A “Manichaean” Treatise

celestial realm of his own, to which God’s people will be drawn when they
are freed from the power of the enemy.16
The first chapter is, surprisingly, a profession of monotheism,17 but this
is subsequently qualified: God is Father and Creator of all, but “all” means
what is spiritual and invisible. The word “all” must be understood to convey
different meanings at different times: It may refer to the work of the good
God, or to all that is evil and the work of Satan (chap. XII). Similarly, the
word “nothing” reveals the difference between the two creations. The
creation of Satan is nothing, nonbeing, for it is entirely without charity,
which is the essence of good (chap. XIII).18
The truth, unperceived by some persons, the author states in chapter II,
is that in addition to this wicked present world with its vain and corruptible
creatures there is another world, eternal, invisible, incorruptible. Inhabitants
of the present world walk in sin, unaware of God’s wisdom (chap. III). They
are enemies of God, steeped in their lusts, and cannot be the kingdom of
Christ, who himself so testified. What is wicked cannot be the creation of
God, and what is not of God is not of Christ (chap. IV). In contrast to the
wicked world, Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting one, established on the
throne of David in the home of Jacob. Flesh and blood have no part therein,
nor do sinners. It was granted by God to Christ, his son and high priest and
inheritor (chap. V). The good creation comprises “a new heaven and a new
earth,” in which are found the holy Jerusalem, the tree of life and the river
of life, and the angelic court of the Father (chap. VI). In God’s creation,
those things which are of Christ, into which he came, include his mother
and the people of God. There only, not in this evil creation, did he become
incarnate (chap. VII).
But into God’s creation and among the people of God the devil came like
an enemy to sow weeds in the field (chap. VIII). We are not told explicitly
what occurred, but are probably justified in assuming that behind these words
lies the story of the Satanic invasion of heaven and the carrying off of the
angels.19 Thus, in the wicked world, amidst its original inhabitants bom of
sin and flesh, are now found “the children of the kingdom.” At this point the
author declares that the children of evil, like the Pharisees whom Christ
rebuked, are evil in body and also evil in heart, from which flow their vices.
But he speaks also of the spirit, which he says cannot be identified with the
inward parts of man. Is not this a reference to the heretical concept of the
threefold angelic existence—body, soul, and spirit—of which only the spirit
did not come under Satan’s power, while body and soul are imprisoned in
this wicked world?
However this may be, the present world is a place of darkness and misery
(chap. VI). Its days are evil, as the Psalmist, caught in the misery of these
days, declares (chap. IX). Its works, which are of darkness and sin, coming
from the devil, are vain and corruptible and must pass away (chap. X).
In sharp contrast is the greater and more perfect creation of God, in
which are the tabernacle of Christ and the angelic hierarchies. Because it is
invisible, it must be apprehended by its works and by faith; its essence and
496 Catharist Literature
form are spiritual (chaps. II, XIV). The earth in this good creation was
given to Christ by God the Father and only in that “land of the living,”
rich in sapphires and gold, is the inheritance of the meek; only there may
be seen the good things of God (chap. XV).
Concurrent with this description of the two realms runs the proof that this
present world cannot in any way be part of God’s creation. We are com-
manded in the Gospel not to love the world. This world is material and
visible; it is lustful (chap. XIV). It is the strange land in which kings and
princes conspire against Christ and thus prove that they are not of God.
In its abysses lie Ashur (the devil) and the multitudes of his warriors, who
had once spread their terror in the land of the living—here seems to be a
reference to Satan’s invasition of heaven and his repulse (chap. XVI).
The promise of redemption has been made to those who are good, who
are imprisoned in evil and implore the Lord for salvation (chaps. IX, XV).
God’s creatures will be brought out of the countries of their exile to their
own land, the new earth which God gave to Christ (chap. XVI). The means
of salvation is Christ, who became incarnate and suffered in the superior
realm in order to draw all unto himself. The fate of the present heavens
is to disappear in heat and fire on the Day of Judgment,20 when the day of
the Lord will suddenly appear. The “new heavens,” however, are said in the
Scriptures to have perished or been lost, to grow old and change. It appears
that these words refer to the “sheep that are lost of the house of Israel,” to
V

whom Christ was sent. They grdw old among enemies, but on being regained
will be changed into incorruptibility by the right hand of the Most High
(chap. XVII). Then the lost sheep, the children of Jerusalem, will be gathered
together, and to them, in the joy of their salvation will be restored the
crowns of justice which they had lost by their sin (chap. XIX).
After first publishing Durand of Huesca’s excerpts from the heretical
work, with an exhaustive commentary, Mile Thouzellier also edited separately
Durand’s Liber contra manicheos, under the title Une Somme anti-cathare.
%

Some further details on the beliefs of the Albigenses are given therein. The
Cathar treatise has also been translated into French by Jean Duvernoy, in
Cahiers ctetudes cathares, 2d ser., XIII (1962), 22-54.
Our translation is made from Christine Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare
inedit du dSbut du XlIIe siecle, d’apres le Liber contra manicheos de Durand
de Huesca (Bibliotheque de la Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, XXXVII
[Louvain, 1961], pp. 87-113, by permission of Mile Thouzellier and the
publisher, the Bibliotheque de l’Universite de Louvain.

1218-1222
A “manichaean” treatise

/. On the Beginning of the Manichaean Treatise21

Since certain persons wrongfully reproach us for Our beliefs in respect
of divine works and creatures, we will confess in words and equally in
58. A “Manichaean” Treatise 497
heart what we do believe in these matters, so that those who in ignorance
assail us may, when they are informed, more clearly recognize the
truth.
At the outset, then, we absolutely acknowledge the true and highest
God, Father Almighty, by whom, as we read and believe, were made
“heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,”22 a fact
which the testimony of the prophets confirms and the words of the New
Testament set forth more fully. For God himself speaks through His
prophet Isaiah: “I am the first and I am the last. My hand also hath
founded the earth and my right hand hath measured the heavens”;23
and again, “Behold, I create a new heaven and a new earth.”24 And the
angel in the Apocalypse: “Fear the Lord and give him honor, because the
hour of his judgment is come; and adore ye Him that made heaven and
earth, the sea and all things that are in them.”25 And again, the four and
twenty elders: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor
and power, because Thou hast created all things, and for Thy will they
were and have been created.”24
Also Paul and Barnabas in the Acts: “Ye men, why do ye these things?
We also are mortals, men like unto you, preaching to you to be converted
from these vain things to the living and the true God, who made the
heaven and the earth, the sea and all things that are in them.”27 Like¬
wise, the other apostles in the same book: “Lord, thou art He that didst
make heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them”;28 also
Paul in the same book, “God, who made the world and all things therein,
He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with
hands.”22 And David: “Blessed be you of the Lord, Who made heaven
and earth.”30 And in the Apocalypse: “And to the angel of the church of
Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God.”81
Therefore, from these words of testimony and very many more, we
believe that Almighty God made as well as created32 the heaven, the
earth, the sea, the world, and all things which are in them. And so
on....

II. On the Beginning of Their Disclosure and Interpretation

Now, since there are many persons who pay little heed to the other
world (seculo)34 and to other created things beyond those visible in this
wicked world, which are vain and corruptible, which as surely as they
498 Catharist Literature

come from nothing shall return to nothing, we say that in truth there
exists another world and other, incorruptible and eternal created things
and in them rest our faith and hope.85 For the substance of those things
is faith, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews: “Faith is the substance of
things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” 86 And
so on....

111. On the Two Worlds (Seculis)

The Son of God also spoke of the two worlds when He said: “The
children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but they that shall
be accounted worthy of that world and of the resurrection from the dead
shall neither be married nor take wives.” 37 Of the course of this world,
the Apostle says to the Galatians: “Grace be to you, and peace from God
the Father and from our own Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for
our sins, that he might deliver us from this present wicked world”;38 and
to the Ephesians, “And you, when you were dead in your offenses and
sins, wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this
world.”89 And elsewhere, to the Romans: “And be not conformed to
this world”;40 and in another place, in the first Epistle to the Corin¬
thians: “We speak wisdom among the perfect, yet not the wisdom of
this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to naught; but
we speak the wisdom of God, which none of the princes of this world
knew.”41 And so on. • • •

IV. On the Two Worlds (Mundis)

Of the present wicked world, wholly seated in wickedness,42 James says
in his Epistle: “Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world
is the enemy of God? Whoever, therefore, will be a friend of this world
becometh an enemy of God.”48 And Paul: “For the fashion of this world
passeth away.”44 And John: “Love not the world, nor the things which
• •

are in the world. For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the
flesh,”45 and so on. And Christ: “The prince of this world cometh”;46
and again, “My kingdom is not of this world”;47 and in another place,
“I pray not for the world”;48 and elsewhere, “Father, the world hath not
known Thee.” 49 Again, He says of His own: “They are not of the world,
as also I am not of the world”;59 also, “In the world you shall have
distress”;81 again, “If you had been of the world, the world would love
its own”;52 again, “The world hath hated them.” 58 And John [says]:
55. A “Manichaean” Treatise
i ■

“Wonder not if the world hate you”;54 and elsewhere, “Therefore the
world knoweth not us, because it knew not Him.” 55
If the whole world is seated in wickedness, and if neither it nor the
things which are in it are to be loved, then one cannot believe them to
be Christ’s possessions, since they are not of the Father; and if they are
not of the Father, they are not of Christ. He himself said to the Father,
“All my things are thine and thine are mine.” 58 Also, if the kingdom of
Christ is not of this world, and He does not pray for it, and if the things
which are His are not of the world, but rather the world hates them and
in it they have distress, and if the world persecutes and strives against
them and Christ, then one cannot believe that the world is His, for it
knows Him not nor understands Him.
Now, since we know the world to be evil, we will proceed to discuss to
the best of our ability, its ages, days and works, its men, the prince and
ruling powers, and something of its food and drink. And so on_

V. On the Two Kingdoms

We believe that in that world (ibi) is the kingdom of which Christ said,
“My kingdom is not of this world,” 57 and so on, as we have remarked in
the preceding chapter. In truth, Daniel says of His power and His king-
dom, “His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away;
and His kingdom a kingdom that shall not be destroyed.”88 And the
angel [announced] to Mary: “Of His kingdom there shall be no end. The
Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David his father, and He
shall reign in the house of Jacob forever.”59 And David: “Thy kingdom is
a kingdom of all ages.”80 Paul, discussing the resurrection, says: “Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of
God”;81 and elsewhere, “For know you this, that no fornicator or un¬
clean or covetous person (which is a serving of idols) hath inheritance in
the kingdom of Christ and of God.”88 Wherefore, we say that if the
present kingdom, whose king we know to be iniquitous, were the king¬
dom of Christ and of God, never would it have such inhabitants nor
would it be destroyed.
Of the other world and its making, in truth, John says in the Apoc¬
alypse, “The kingdom of this world is become our God’s and His
Christ’s.”88 Lo, these “voices” 84 and the “world” and the “kingdom”
were in heaven. But over against this kingdom, which is celestial, is
found another kingdom, that of Satan, of which Christ said, “If Satan
500 Catharist Literature
cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his king¬
dom stand?” 65 And those who are children of this kingdom “shall be
cast out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth.” 66 And so on_

VI. On the New Heaven and the New Earth

In that world, we believe, there are a new heaven and a new earth, of
which the Lord says to His people in Isaiah: “For as the new heavens
and the new earth which I will make to stand before me, saith the Lord,
so shall your seed stand and your name.” 67 And in his Epistle, Peter
says, “We look for new heavens and a new earth, according to His
promises, in which justice dwelleth.” 68 And John in the Apocalypse: “I
saw a new heaven and a new earth.” 69 Therein are the sun and the moon
of which Isaiah spoke: “Thy sun shall go down no more and thy moon
shall not decrease.” 70 And in the Book of Wisdom: “The sun of under¬
standing hath not risen upon us.” 71 Therein is the city of which John
speaks in the Apocalypse: “I, John, say the holy city, the new Jerusa¬
lem”; 72 of it he said, “The city itself pure gold, like to pure glass.” 73 Of
it, also, the Apostle said, “But that Jerusalem which is above is free,
which is our mother.” 74 Therein is the tree of life, of which John says
in the Apocalypse, “To him that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree
of life, which is in the Paradise of my God.” 75 Therein is “the river of the
water of life,” of which John says in the Apocalypse: “And the angel
showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the
throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on
both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yield¬
ing its fruits every month.” 76 Therein is the holy and angelic court of the
Father, of which Daniel speaks: “Thousands of thousands ministered to
him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him.” 77
Of the works and the creatures which are there the Apostle says that
“eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart
of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him.” 78 And
so on....

VII. On the Possessions into Which the Word of the Father Came
9

Many persons insist that this present world is the possession of which
John says, “He came into His own.” 79 But John’s words in his Epistle—
“Love not the world,” 80 and elsewhere, “The whole world is seated in
wickedness” 81—contradict their assertion. We prove by authentic evi-
58. A “Manichaean” Treatise 501
dence that “His own” means His mother and the people of God. For
the Virgin herself declares that she is His by saying to the angel, “Behold
the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to Thy word.”8t
And so on....

VIII. On Sowing the Field; That is. On the Cockle and the Wheat
The devil engendered the children of this world, who are bom of the
flesh of sin, who are bom of blood and of the will of the flesh and of the
pleasure of men.88 Thus, Christ says, “The kingdom of heaven is likened
to a man that sowed good seed in his field,”84 and so on. This analogy
He explained by saying: “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of
man. And the field, indeed, is the world. And the good seed are the
children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked
one. And the enemy that sowed them is the devil.” 85
But false interpreters declare this field, which the Lord said was His,
to be the present world, a statement which seems false to us. For in the
world of which the Lord spoke the good were found first, and thereafter
the evil. But in the present world, the evil ones were first present, and
thereafter the good. And John says in his Epistle, “In this the children
of God are manifest, and the children of the devil.”86 Wherein? In that
some are good and others are evil. Moreover, the Lord says to the
Pharisees in the Gospel: “Now you Pharisees make clean the outside of
the cup and of the dish, but your inside is full of rapine and iniquity. Ye
fools and blind men, did not He that made that which is without make
also that which is within?” 87
b

Now we believe that one and the same maker made that which is
within and that which is without; but less capable interpreters, indeed,
bluster that the words refer alike to the spirit and the flesh, declaring that
the spirit is “that which is within,” the flesh is “that which is without.”
And so they say that the Lord attested that He who made the flesh made
the spirit also. But it cannot be admitted that Christ spoke thus of the
spirit to the Pharisees, who cleansed neither the spirit within nor that
which is without. They who adorn the body, cleansing the exterior,
cleanse that which is “the outside of the cup and of the dish.” They
cleanse not “that which is within” who do not purify the heart from filth,
of which the Lord says, “From the heart come forth evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.
These are the things that defile a man.” 88 And so on....
502 Catharist Literature

IX. On the Good Days and the Evil Ones

We also call the days of this present world evil, in accordance with
the thought of Paul: “See, brethren,” he said, “how you walk circum¬
spectly, not as unwise, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days
are evil”;89 and again, “that you may be able to resist in the evil day.”90
And in the Gospel: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” 91 The
Psalmist says of them, “My days have declined like a shadow.”92 And
Job: “My days have passed more swiftly than die web is cut by the
weaver, and are consumed without any hope.” 93 He, who was set
amidst the miseries of the present days, sighed, “Who will grant me that I
might be according to the months past, according to the days in which
God kept me?” 94 Of those days Peter says: “Who will love life and see
good days”;95 and elsewhere, “One day with the Lord is as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day.” 96 And so on....

X. On Good Works and Evil Ones

That the works of the world are indeed evil, Christ himself declared
when He said: “The world hateth me because I give testimony of it, that
the works thereof are evil”;97 and again, “This is the judgment: because
the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than
light, for their works were evil. For everyone that doth evil hateth the
light and cometh not to the light” 98—that is, cometh not to Christ, Who
is the true light—“that his works may not be reproved.” 99 And again:
“Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin,” 100 that is, of the devil,
who is called sin,101 as the text has it in the Epistle of John: “He that com¬
mitteth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinned from the beginning”; but
“for this purpose the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the
works of the devil.” 102 Of those works it is written in the Book of Wis¬
dom, “Every work that is corruptible shall fail in the end, and the worker
thereof shall go with it.” 103 And the Apostle: “The spirit that now
worketh on the children of unbelief”;104 and elsewhere, “For such are
deceitful workmen.” 105 And Ecclesiastes: “I have seen all things that
are done under the sun and behold, all is vanity and vexation of the
spirit”;106 and again, “All things are subject to vanity. And all things go
to one place; of earth they were made and into earth they return to¬
gether.” 107
But of good and eternal works in the Book of Wisdom we read this:
58. A “Manichaean” Treatise 503
lovest, O Lord, all things that are, and hatest none of the things which
Thou hast made, for Thou didst not appoint or make anything hating r

it”;1#® and again, “He hath made all things good in their time”;110 and
again, “I have learned that all the works which God hath made con¬
tinue forever”;111 and again, “Every excellent work shall be justified,
and the worker thereof shall be honored therein.” 112 And the Apostle:
“It is God who worketh in you.” 118 And so on....

XL On Twofold Creation
Now because “creation” is sometimes taken in the sense of a work114
let us say something of the good creation and the evil one. About the
evil creation the Apostle spoke thus: “Christ, being come an high priest
of the good things to come, entered by a greater and more perfect taber¬
nacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.” 115 And if it is
not of this creation, that is, the present one, then this present creation is
evil and has not the tabernacle which Christ entered, since the tabernacle
which Christ entered must be believed to be good, being of the good
creation. For the Apostle testifies that God, not man, constructed it.
Also, in the Book of Wisdom, with reference to the evil creation it is
ft

said: “Their wives are foolish and their children wicked. Their offspring is
cursed.” 116 Christ, indeed, is witness that the heaven and the earth of
the present creation shall pass,117 that is, shall wholly disappear with all
that is in them, just as the Blessed Apostle Peter says: “For the scoffers
are ignorant that the heavens were before and the earth out of water, and
through water, consisting by the word of God, whereby the world that
then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the
earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto
fire against the Day of Judgment and perdition of the ungodly men,” and
so on to the words, “the elements shall be melted with the heat of fire.” 118
Of this earth itself the Apostle says, “But that which bringeth forth thorns
and briers is reprobate, and very near a curse, whose end is to be
burnt.” 119 Indeed, it is written in the Book of Wisdom, of the sun which
is in this heaven, “What is brighter than the sun; yet it shall be
eclipsed.” 120 And so on....
XII. On [the Word] “All”
But since many persons do not know what the Holy Scriptures mean
by the term “all,” we will state that, for the most part, “all” bespeaks
only the good and spiritual things, but sometimes only evil things and
504 Catharist Literature

sin.121 We believe that to the good and to the spiritual refer the words of
the Apostle: “Because in Him it hath well pleased the Father that all
fullness of the Godhead corporeally should dwell, and through Him all
things be reconciled, making peace through the blood of His cross, both
11
122
the things that are in heaven and the things that are on earth
One cannot believe, however, that all things which are on this earth
will be reconciled through Christ in himself, for almost all things here are
seen to exist in the greatest discord. Likewise, the Lord applied the
term “all” only to the good and spiritual when he said, “And I, if I be
lifted up from the earth will draw all things unto myself.” 123 For Christ,
lifted up from the earth, did not draw unto himself all things which are
in this world, in which for the most part are things unclean and absolutely
to be shunned or avoided. And He says elsewhere, “All things are
delivered to me by my Father.” 124 And John in the Gospel: “All things
were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing.” Indeed, be-
- f

cause he said this of what is spiritual and good, John subsequently added:
“What was made in Him, was life.” 125
In like manner “all” may be used to refer to evil things and sin, ac¬
cording to the words of the Apostle: “I have suffered the loss of all things
and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ.” 126 And Solomon:
“Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity”;127 and again, “I have seen all
things that are done under the sun and behold, all is vanity and vexation
of spirit”;128 and again, “All things are subject to vanity. And all things
go to one place.” 129 Therefore, it may be proved in this way that “all” in
the Holy Scriptures is used sometimes to mean eternal things, sometimes
temporal things, and on that account the word “all” must be taken in a
double sense, in accordance with the text of Wisdom: “All things are
double, one against another.” 180 And so on....

XIII. On This Word “Nothing”

The Apostle, indeed, explains that what is in the world, that is, of the
world, truly should be called “nothing” when he says: “We know that an
idol is nothing in the world”;131 and again, “If I should have prophecy
and should know all mysteries, and if I should have all faith so that I
could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” 132
Whence it appears that if the Apostle were nothing without charity, all
that is without charity is nothing. Hence, Isaiah also says, “All nations
are before Him as if they had no being at all and are counted to Him as
58. A “Manichaean” Treatise 505
nothing and vanity.” 188 And the Psalmist: “Thou shalt bring all nations
to nothing”;184 and elsewhere, “In his sight the malignant is brought to
nothing.’*185 And in Ezechiel it is said to the king of Tyre: “Thou art
brought to nothing, and thou shalt never be any more.” 136 And Isaiah:
“Behold, you are of nothing and your work of that which hath no being;
he that hath chosen you is an abomination.”137 And John in the Gospel:
“Without Him was made nothing.” 138
If all the evil spirits and evil men and all things that are visible in this
world are nothing because they are without charity, therefore they were
made without God. Therefore God did not make them, since “without
Him was made nothing,” and as the Apostle testifies, “If I have not
charity, I am nothing.” 139

XIV. On the Good Creation

Of the good creation the Apostle says to the Hebrews, “He that
created all things is God.” 140 And Solomon: “He that liveth forever
created all things together.” 141 Also the Apostle to the Colossians: “For
in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and in¬
visible, whether thrones, or dominations, or princes, or powers; all things
were created by Him and in Him. And He is before all and by Him all
things consist,” 142 and so on. There is no doubt at all that this was said
of spiritual beings, since the Apostle says “whether thrones,” and so
on.143
But that these may be called both visible and invisible appears from
the words of the Apostle himself when he says, “For the invisible things
of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, His eternal power also, and divinity.” 144 And
in the Gospel: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was made
nothing.” 146 Because John said this with reference to the spiritual and
good, he added later: “What was made in Him, was life.” 146 Further,
Paul says of the good creatures, “For every creature of God is good.” 147
If every creature of God is good, and the world, as some persons say, is
God’s creation, with all that are therein, what reason is there that they
should not be loved? For John forbids loving them. If the world ought
not to be loved, and if those that are therein ought not to be loved, then
it cannot be admitted that they are of God, for everything which is of
God is good and therefore to be loved. Is not the present world visible?
What else does “world” mean but the heavens, the earth, the air, the sea,
506 Catharist Literature

and all things therein? And is not all that is in the world the concupis¬
cence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes? 148 What does the
eye lust after but what it may see? What can be seen but the visible?
O senseless men of learning, who hath bewitched you 149 into incom¬
prehension of these things? O full of all guile and of all deceit, children
of the devil, enemies of the cross of Christ and of all justice,150 why do
you not cease to resist the truth? O blind leaders of the blind,151 what can
be plainer in Holy Scriptures? But why do I labor longer to reprove you
heretics? Have I not heard that Christ came in judgment so that seeing,
you see not, and hearing, you do not perceive? 1521 have assuredly heard
this and hence I despair of your conversion. And so on....

XV. On the New Earth

But though you are thus blinded and concluded under sin,153 let those
who do have ears to hear154 listen to what the Spirit may say of the good
creatures, which certainly are of God, for He says in the Psalms, “The
Lord hath established the world which shall not be moved.” 155 Of this
world the Apostle says to the Hebrews that God did not make it subject
to angels but to Christ His Son, “whom He hath appointed heir of all
things, by whom also He made the world.”158 Of the earth in this world
the same Apostle speaks in affirmation of the prophecy of the psalmist
David: “Thou, in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth.” 157 It
was in that earth that the same prophet, seated in this land of woes and
darkness, hoped to see the good things of the Lord, saying, “I believe to
see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living,” 158 thus reveal¬
ing that the good things of the Lord cannot be fully seen except in the
land of the living. And the same says elsewhere: “I cried to Thee, O
Lord. I said, Thou art my hope, my portion in the land of the living”;159
and again, “Thy good spirit shall lead me into the right land”;180 and
again, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and all
that dwell therein.” 161
Now these words do not seem to have been used with reference to the
earth, of which David himself, personifying the people of Israel, says,
“How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a strange land?” 182 nor to a
world in which dwell more evil ones than good, where stand the kings
of the earth and the princes met together “against the Lord and his
Christ,” 183 as David prophesied. It is obvious, therefore, that the kings,
princes, Pharisees, and all who meet together against the Lord and His
58. A “Manichaean” Trealise 507
Christ cannot be His, since Christ himself says: “He that is not with me
is against me”;164 and also, “Therefore you hear them not, because you
are not of God.” 165 If they were not of God, they did not inhabit God’s
world. But did not the Jews who heard not the word of the Lord inhabit
this world? Assuredly they did.
This world, then, is not the one of which the prophet spoke, nor does
this world and the plenitude thereof seem to be of the Lord, because in it
reigns sin, rather than good. But on the contrary, it seems to be of the
devil. But of that land of which David asserted that it is of the Lord,
Christ himself says, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the
land”;166 and of it Job said, “The stones of it are the place of sapphires
and the clods of it are gold.” 167 And so on....

XVI. On the Same, That Is, the New Earth

And in Ezechiel the Lord says: “For I will take you from among the
Gentiles and will gather you together out of all the countries, and will
bring you into your own land,” 168 of which Job says, “The stones of it
are the place of sapphires and the clods of it are gold.” 168 And in
Ezechiel: “Ashur is there and all his multitude.17® Their graves are round
about him, all of them slain and that fell by the sword, whose graves are
set in the lowest parts of the pit; and his multitude lay round about his
grave, all of them slain and fallen by the sword; they that heretofore
spread terror in the land of the living. There is Elam and all his multi¬
tude round about his grave, all of them slain and fallen by the sword;
they that went down uncircumcised to the lowest parts of the earth, that
caused their terror in the land of the living.” 171
“There is Mosoch and Thubal, and all their multitude. Their graves
are round about him, all of them uncircumcised and slain and fallen by
the sword, though they spread their terror in the land of the living. And
now they shall sleep178 with the brave and with them that fell uncir¬
cumcised, that went down to hell with their weapons and laid their
swords under their heads; and their iniquities were in their bones, be¬
cause they were the terror of the mighty in the land of the living.”173
And a little later: “There are all the princes of die north and all the
hunters who were brought down with the slain, fearing and confounded
in their strength, who sleep uncircumcised with them that are slain by the
sword and have borne their shame with them that go down into the pit.
Pharaoh saw them, and he was comforted concerning all his multitude
508 Catharist Literature

which was slain by the sword: Pharaoh and all his army, saith the Lord
God, because he spread his terror in the land of the living.” 174 And
again, “As you have forsaken me and served a strange god in your own
land, so shall you serve strange gods in a land that is not your own.” 175
Lo, there is a strange god! Lo, there is our land and a land not ours!
Of the former the Lord says in the same book, “So will I visit my sheep
and will deliver them out of all the places where they have been scattered
in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the peoples,
and will gather them out of the countries, and I will bring them to their
own land.” 176 Of this land the Lord says in Isaiah: “The earth is my
footstool”;177 and again, “I made the earth and I created man upon it”;178
and elsewhere, “For behold, I create a new earth,” 179 whereof elsewhere
in Isaiah it is written, “Let the earth be opened and bud forth a savior.” 180
And the Lord says through the prophet Jeremiah, “I made the earth and
the men and the beasts that are upon all the face of the earth, and I have
given it to whom it seemed good in my eyes.” 181 And so on. .. .

XVII. On the New Heavens

Now that we have uttered ample testimony about the good earth which
the Lord established in the beginning, we will bring forward valid and
plentiful evidence of the heavens in which justice dwells and which God
deems worthy for His throne, just as He has prepared it for us. The
Father himself says, “Heaven is my throne.” 182 And the Son in His
prayer: “Our Father who art in heaven.” 188 And again, the Father in
Isaiah: “As the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make to
stand before me, so shall your name stand.” 184 And Peter in the Epistle:
“We look for new heavens and a new earth, in which justice dwelleth.” 185
And the Lord through the prophet: “My hand stretched forth the
heavens and I have commanded all their host”;186 and again in the same
book, “Behold, I create new heavens”;187 and in the same book again,
“Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth.” 188 And David says to the
Lord, “The heavens are the work of Thy hands.” 189
But since there are many persons who in blindness of heart assert that
these things were said of the present heavens, because the prophet
added, “They shall perish,” 190 we, who speak from the good treasury of
our heart,191 will affirm with greater truth and credibility the better
and wholly imperishable heavens. For Peter says of the present heavens:
“The heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept
58. A "Manichaean” Treatise 509
in store, reserved unto fire against the Day of Judgment and perdition
of the ungodly men”;192 and a little later, “The day of the Lord shall
come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence,
and the elements shall be melted with the heat of fire, and the earth and
the works which are in it shall be burnt up. Seeing then that all these
things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in
holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the
coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens, being on fire,
shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat.” 193
Of these very heavens the Lord also says through His prophet, “The
heavens shall vanish like smoke.” 194 And Christ says of the present
creation, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall
be rooted up.” 195 If every plant which the Father did not plant shall be
rooted up, then that which the Father did plant cannot be rooted up.
And so it is not credible that these things were said of the heavens
which are the work of the hands of God, since all the works of God re-
4

main forever. Now David says of the heavens which are the work of the
hands of God, that they shall perish; later he says that they shall grow old,
and then that they shall be changed.190 This is not to be interpreted as a
reference to the present heavens, of which, in the foregoing, God and
Peter spoke. For the present heavens shall pass away after great violence
and, being on fire, shall be dissolved and vanish like smoke, and it is
not to be believed that they shall grow old or, growing old, shall be
changed. But the heavens which perish197 are those of which the Lord
says in Isaiah, “Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth.” 198 Those
heavens have ears for hearing, for unless they could hear, the Lord would
not say to them “Hear!” Saying of them that they perish the Apostle
tells the Corinthians in the first Epistle: “And were destroyed (perierunt)
by the destroyer”;199 and the Lord in Ezechiel, “I will seek that which
was lost (quod perierat).”200 And the Lord, while seeking, said,“ The Son
of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”201 And else¬
where to the disciples: “Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into
the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel.” 202 And again, “I was not sent but to the sheep
that are lost of the house of Israel.” 203 Of these which are regained, it is
written in the psalm: “The heavens show forth the glory of God”;204
and in the same book, “The heaven of heavens is the Lord’s”; and again,
“Praise the Lord, ye heaven of heavens.” 205
510 Catharist Literature

Moreover, Jeremiah says that those very things which perish shall
have grown old: “O Israel, how art thou grown old in a strange coun¬
try.” 206 And David, personifying all Israel: “I have grown old,” he said,
“amongst all my enemies.” 207 That in truth they shall be changed the
Apostle says to the Corinthians: “We shall all indeed rise again, but we
shall not all be changed”; 208 and again, “The dead shall rise again in¬
corruptible, and we shall be changed.” 209 And this change is “the
change of the right hand of the Most High.” 210 And so on....
XVIII. On the Sheep of the House of Israel %

Now Christ says: “I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the
house of Israel”;211 and to the apostles, “Go ye rather to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel.” 212 And in Ezechiel: “Behold, I myself will seek
my sheep and will deliver them out of all the places where they have
been scattered”;213 and again, “I will seek that which was lost.” 214 And
while searching, He said: “The Son of man is come to seek and to save
that which was lost”;215 and elsewhere, “The Son of man came not to
destroy souls but to save.” 216 And again, to Jerusalem: “How often
would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her
chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not.” 217 Also in Ezechiel,
“I will gather you together out of all the countries.” 218 And so on. ...
XIX. On This Word “Restore”
“There is laid up for me,” [the Apostle] said, “ a crown of justice
which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in that day, and not only
to me but to them also that love His coming.” 219 And the word of the
Psalmist: “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation.” 220 And the word of
Jeremiah, “The crown is fallen from our head; woe to us, because we
have sinned,” 22t and others like these....
... And since we have made a considerable digression in these two chap¬
ters 222 from those things which were written in the compilation of the
Cathars, now, aided by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we turn again the
pen of controversy 228 to those things which have been omitted.
Here ends the first book. There are twenty-one chapters in it, and
there are as many in the next.
59. Book of Two Principles (Introduction) 511

59. The Book of the Two Principles

The seven pieces comprising the treatise translated here constitute the most
considerable body of Catharist literature that has come to light. They were
written just before the middle of the thirteenth century by an Italian Cathar,
whose intent was to affirm certain principles peculiar to the Albanenses. Six
of the component parts are concerned with the problem posed by the exist¬
ence of evil among the creatures of a God who is pure goodness: How could
those angels who were created good have been turned to evil? The seventh
part of the treatise is a compilation of scriptural verses emphasizing that
the true followers of Christ must inevitably be persecuted.
The author accounts for the existence of evil amidst good by asserting
that there is an absolute duality of gods, creators, and creations—an absolute
opposition of good to evil—and by denying the existence of free will among
the creatures of good. On those who fail to recognize these “truths” he turns
his polemic, principally against the sect of Garatenses, who held to modified
dualism, but also against Catholics. Zeal and conviction are more charac¬
teristic of his argument than clarity and precision. The treatise as a whole
lacks unity; there are numerous repetitions and redundancies and some
contradictory passages; the language in places is obscure, perhaps betraying
the author’s failure to comprehend fully some of the doctrines he attacks or
defends. In organization and content the treatise compares poorly with the
work of orthodox theologians or the better of the contemporary writers
against heresy.1 But with all of these qualifications, The Book of the Two
Principles must be considered a work of first importance to us. It is one of
the few Catharist works to have survived, and it presents specific tenets, as
embraced and justified by an eager partisan of the Albanensian faction.
Who was the author? Nowhere does he give a direct clue to his identity,
except for the statement that he was one of the “true Christians” called
Albanenses (IV, 6; V, 1). It is most probable that he wrote in the decade
1240-1250 somewhere in the vicinity of Lake Garda (between Brescia and
Verona), in the area which was the homeland of John of Lugio,2 who it will
be recalled was the leader, about 1230, of a dissenting faction among the
Albanenses (see No. 51, §§ 19-23), and whose doctrines are certainly the
basis for some portions of this work. Accordingly, Antoine Dondaine, who
edited the treatise, tentatively suggests that John of Lugio was the author—an
identification which has been accepted without reservation by some scholars
but has been denied by others.8 Whoever he was, the author did not prepare
the manuscript which now preserves his work. Paleographical evidence
reveals that two copyists were involved. One of them transcribed the first
three pieces; the second scribe copied the remainder of the tract, corrected
the work of the first in some places, and also wrote into the manuscript the
text of the ritual for the consolamentum in Latin (No. 57, part A). The
copyists worked after 1254 or 1258, perhaps as late as 1280, in the region
where the work was composed. In the fourteenth century the manuscript
512 Catharist Literature
fell into orthodox hands, and passed into a monastic library; by the eight¬
eenth century it was the property of the Dominican convent of San Marco
in Florence. Later transferred to the Biblioteca nazionale of that city, it
was discovered there by Dondaine and published in 1939.4
Despite the author’s anonymity, some of the influences shaping his thought
are discernible. He was thoroughly familiar with the Bible in the Vulgate
text, although with which of the manuscript families current in the Middle
Ages has not been determined. The doctrines of John of Lugio so underlie
the discussion that both Rene Nelli, who translated the treatise into French,
and Dondaine insist that the particular themes can be understood only in the
context of that heresiarch’s teaching.5 A few phrases reminiscent of the
Catharist ritual in Latin may indicate the author’s familiarity with the ver¬
sion we know. Presumably, he had also read works produced by his adver¬
saries the Garatenses. There is reason to suppose that he was familiar, too,
with the arguments based on scriptural texts which Catholic polemicists
were wont to use. Included in the treatise are a citation from Roman law;
one from a pseudo-Aristotelian work, the Liber de causis; others which are
thought to be from Aristotle; and phrases which may derive from the
eleventh-century Jewish philosopher Ibn Gabirol. Among the author’s
opponents, one whom he treats respectfully is a certain Master William.
This may have been William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris (d. 1249). It has
been persuasively argued that the author picked up his acquaintance with
these various sources at second hand, through some orthodox treatise against
heresy.6
The author wrote for the benefit of those “who are hampered in rightly
understanding the truth” (I, 1) and, in part, “for the instruction of be¬
ginners,” who are taking their first steps toward its comprehension (IV, 1).
He explains the position held by those who are “true Christians” and “wise,”
whom he equates with members of the sect of Albanenses (IV, 6, 7). His
adversaries are primarily the sect of the Garatenses—more commonly re¬
ferred to by contemporaries as the sect of Concorezzo, whose rivalry with
the Albanenses was a constant factor in the history of the Italian Cathars—
and against them he directs part V. His other opponents he identifies only
by epithets: They are the “unlearned” (indocti: I, 8); the “unenlightened”
(imperiti: I, 18); and theirs is the “belief of the ignorant” (fidem ignavorum:
IV, 11). On occasion the author seems to distinguish more than one group
in his remarks (IV, 10; V, 2). We may assume that he had in view not only
Cathars who did not share his doctrines but also Catholics, for sometimes
he represents his opponents as citing the Old Testament profusely;7 more¬
over, some of their arguments are found also in Catholic polemical sources.
The order of the component parts of The Book of the Two Principles in
the manuscript may not be the actual order of their composition, for the
argument occasionally fails of logical sequence and the titles of the divisions
are not always exactly descriptive of the contents. In his Introduction (p. 15)
Dondaine sees the work as composed of three major parts which are more
59. Book of Two Principles (Introduction) 513

closely related to each other than they are to three relatively minor pieces
which follow them. His outline of its organization is the following (the
numbers in parentheses are those used for the divisions made in this trans¬
lation):
A. On the Two Principles
1. On Free Will (I)
2. On Creation (II)
3. On the Terms of Universality (III)
B. A Compend for the Instruction of Beginners (IV)
C. Against the Garatenses
1. A First Rebuttal (V, 1-3)
2. A Declaration to the Faithful (V, 4-5)
3. A Further Argument (V, 6)
D. On Will (VI, 1)
E. More on This Concept (De sententia) (VI, 2)
F. On Persecutions (VII)
Arno Borst, who has studied the work with equal care, proposes a different
outline:8
A. A Compend for the Instruction of Beginners (IV)
B. On Creation and on the Terms of Universality (II, III)
C. On Free Will (I, 7ff. [I, 1-6, would no doubt be regarded as intro¬
ductory])
D. On Will (VI)
E. Against the Garatenses (IV)
F. On Persecutions (VII)
Our translation follows the order of the parts in the manuscript and in the
edition by Dondaine.
For an understanding of the treatise, the reader might profit from the
comments of Rainerius Sacconi (No,. 51) on the beliefs of John of Lugio,
particularly in respect of his concept of another world between God’s perfect
heaven and this earth created by the devil.9 It may also be of some use here
to sketch briefly the author’s line of argument in each part of the work.
I, On Free Will.—Opponents of the true concept of two principles
declare that there is but one God, who is pure goodness, omniscient, and
omnipotent (§§ 1-6). But a difficulty arises from their tenet because we
know that His angelic creatures fell into sin. Since God’s knowledge encom¬
passes all that was, is, and shall be, He would have known before the event
that His angels would sin; and because of His knowledge, their sin would
have been inevitable, for in God knowledge and will are synonymous.10
Therefore, we must conclude that there is a cause of evil other than the good
God (§§ 7-8). Various arguments of the opponents who try to prove that the
angels sinned of choice, not by necessity, are refuted (§§ 9-11). That we may
carry out God’s will in serving Him in His creation proves that He is afflicted
*

by an enemy (§§ 12-13), although that service does not arise from our will
but from His (§ 14). The absolute opposition of good to evil must be
514 Catharist Literature

emphasized. It is axiomatic that no power can exist equally capable of good

and evil at the same time; if it did, the angels having it could not avoid doing
evil, for which God would have the ultimate responsibility—a wicked
thought! (§§ 15-16). If an evil cause did not exist, no evil result would be
produced (§ 17). If the angels had free will by God’s creation, and He knew
that they would sin, their sin was inevitable and thus attributable to God
(§ 18). Master William’s argument that, since God could not make His
angels as perfect as Himself, they must covet His perfection, is rejected
(§ 19).
II. On Creation.—To support the conclusion that there must be two
creator-gods, the evidence of the Scriptures is adduced. Opponents of the
truth insist on the omnipotence and eternity of God, the sole creator (§§ 1-3).
They do not perceive the true meaning of “create” and “make.” In no sense
does “creation” mean to bring something out of nothing, for all matter
exists for all time with its creator. Properly understood, “creation” embraces
three modes of change: (a) that which is already good is changed for the
better; thus Christ and other angels were “created” by God as ministers to
those who had sinned; (b) “to create” may mean that those who have fallen
under the domination of evil may be changed, “created” again to good, and
redeemed by the illumination afforded them by Christ; and (c) it may mean
that the good God allows His enemy for a time to afflict His people in order
to achieve His own purposes. Each of these concepts is well attested by
scriptural authority, but in no sense is God to be thought the source of any
evil which exists (§§ 4-12).
III. On the Terms of Universality.—The threefold aspect of creation is
confirmed by an examination of the concept of universals. Terms signifying
universality in the Bible must be properly interpreted. One who has wisdom
will perceive that such words as “all” and “every” are not all-embracing
(§§ 1-3). Sometimes they refer to all that is good (§ 3), sometimes to all that
is evil (§ 4), sometimes to all that was once good but fell under the power
of evil and will be redeemed (§§ 5-7). The conclusion is reiterated: “All”
that is evil cannot be the same as “all” that is good, nor can it arise from
the same source; therefore two separate principles and sources must be
postulated.
IV. A Compend.—In regard to creation, the terms “heaven” and “earth”
used in the Scriptures refer to the intelligent creatures of the good God, the
spiritual creation. The good God is not the creator of the base and tangible
elements of this world; another creator is responsible for them (§ 1). God
is almighty, but not in the sense that He can create evil (§ 2); what He does
«

not desire He cannot do (§ 3). He is omnipotent over all good things (§ 4),
but there must be another creator from whom all evils flow, who in no way
derives from the good God (§§ 5-7). The evil one is eternal, as are his works.
This the Scriptures prove (§§ 8-10). To him belongs all the wickedness
reported in the Old Testament: adultery, theft, murder, the persecution of
Christ, falsehoods, broken promises (§§ 11-17).
59. Book of Two Principles (Introduction) 515
V. Against the Garatenses.—The Garatenses believe that there is one
God, creator of all, but that an evil lord, God’s creature, made this world*
They cannot support this by divine testimony, for believing that the evil lord
was the author of the Old Testament, how can they cite its evidence? Or if
they cite it, how can they avoid its plain testimony that the evil one was a
creator (§§ 1-2)? If they believe that a good God created all things, why do
they spurn the meat, eggs, and cheese of His creation and why do they avoid
matrimony (§ 3)? The Garatenses are challenged to debate the issues (§§ 4-5).
Another question is posed: How can they uphold the belief in creation as the
work of a good God and still deny His responsibility for the evil they discern
in this world (§ 6)?
VI. On Will.—This returns to the themes enunciated in the first part,
“On Free Will.” How can free will be justified in the case of those who
never have done, do not, and never will do good? If God did not know that
angels would become demons, He was not omniscient; if He did know their
fate, they could not avoid it, for His knowledge extends to all that of
necessity occurs (§ 1). Furthermore, those who believe in free will and be¬
lieve that new souls are daily being created fall into sad error. How many
there would be who would be unable, because they were infants or were
hampered by bodily infirmities, to do good and to merit salvation! Hence
the concept of free will is untenable (§ 2).
VII. On PersecutionsM—Christ is the shepherd who sought to recover
the lost sheep. He suffered for their sake but His suffering did not come
from the good God. Instead, this wickedness was endured by the good God
in order to accomplish His purpose, the redemption of His people. As
Christ and the prophets suffered from the evil one’s domination, so must
all true Christians suffer, returning good for evil, for all who will live in
Christ must first endure persecution.12
In our translation we have taken advantage of the detailed commentary
in Borst, Die Katharer, pp. 284-318. We have also profited by consulting the
French translation by Ren6 Nelli, Ecritures cathares, pp. 83-201. Our trans¬
lation is from Antoine Dondaine, Un Trait£ n£o-manich£en du Xllle siecle:
Le Liber de duobus principiis, suivi d'un fragment de rituel cathare (Rome,
1939), pp. 81-147, by permission of the Istituto storico domenicano di
S. Sabina.
%

1240-1250 (?)

THE BOOK OF THE TWO PRINCIPLES

[/. On Free Wilt}

[1] Here Begins the Book of the Two Principles.—Since many per
hampered in rightly understanding the truth, to enlighten them
stimulate those who do have right understanding, and also for the
516 Catharist Literature
delight of my soul, I have made it my purpose to explain our true faith
by evidence from the Holy Scriptures and with eminently suitable argu¬
ments, invoking thereto the aid of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit.
[2] On the Two Principles.—To the honor of the Most Holy Father,1
I wish to begin my discussion concerning the two principles by refuting
the belief in one Principle, however much this may contradict well-nigh
all religious persons. We may commence as follows: Either there is only
one First Principle, or there is more than one.2 If, indeed, there were
one and not more, as the unenlightened say, then, of necessity, He would
be either good or evil. But surely not evil, since then only evil would
proceed from Him and not good, as Christ says in the Gospel of the
Blessed Matthew: “And the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good
tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good
fruit.” 8 And the Blessed James says in his Epistle: “Doth a fountain
send forth out of the same hole sweet and bitter water? Can the fig
tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt
water yield sweet.” 4
[3] On the Goodness of God.—Now, our opponents 8 are clear in
their assertion that God is good, holy, just, wise, and true; that He is also
called pure goodness and is above all praise, as they seek to prove by the
following citations 6 and many others of like nature. For Jesus the son of
Sirach says: “Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for He will yet
far exceed, and His magnificence is wonderful. Blessing the Lord, exalt
Him as much as you can, for He is above all praise.” 7 And David says:
“Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; and of His greatness there is
no end”;8 and again, “Great is our Lord, and great is his power; and of
His wisdom there is no number.” 9 And Paul says to the Romans: “O the
depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How
incomprehensible are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways,” 10
and so on. And in the Liber de causis is written, “The first cause is far
greater than can be described.” 11
[4] That God Knows All Things from Eternity.—Whence they stoutly
affirm that God knows all things from eternity because of the greatness
of His wisdom; that all the past, the present, and the future are always
before Him and He knows all things before they come to pass, as says
Susanna in the Book of Daniel, “O eternal God, who knowest hidden
things, who knowest all things before they come to pass.” 12 And Jesus,
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 517
son of Sirach, says, “For all things were known to the Lord God before
they were created; so also after they were perfected He beholdeth all
things.” 18 And the Apostle writes to the Hebrews, “Neither is there any
creature invisible in His sight, but all things are naked and open to His
eyes.” 14
[5] On the Goodness, Holiness, and Justice of God.—It is clearly
demonstrated, moreover, that our Lord God is good, holy, and just, as is
said above. For David says: “How good is God to Israel, to them that
are of a right heart”;15 and again, “The Lord is faithful in all His words
and holy in all His works”;16 and again, “The Lord is sweet and right¬
eous; therefore He will give a law to sinners in the way”;17 and again,
“God is a just judge, strong and patient; is He angry every day?” 18 And
in the Book of Wisdom it is written, “For so much then as thou art just,
Thou orderest all things justly.” 19
[6] On the Omnipotence of God.—For the Lord is called omnipotent,
as our opponents avow, and He can do whatsoever pleases Him; nor can
anyone resist Him,20 or say, “Why dost Thou so?” As Ecclesiastes says:
“For He will do all that pleaseth Him and His word is full of power;
neither can any man say to Him: ‘Why dost Thou so?’ ” 21 And David
says, “But our God in heaven; He hath done all things whatsoever He
would.” 22 And in the Apocalypse is written: “Saith the Lord God, who
is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.23 And again, “Great
and wonderful are Thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Just and true are
Thy ways, O King of Ages! Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and mag¬
nify Thy name? For Thou only art holy.” 24
[7] On the First Proposition, against My Opponents.—At this point
I take issue with the thesis (sententiam) of those who assert that there is
only one First Principle. For I say: Assume that God—who is good, just,
holy, wise, righteous, “faithful in all His words, and holy in all His
works,” 25 who is almighty and knows all things before they come to
pass, as I have shown above—created and arrayed His angels as He
chose from the beginning through Himself alone and without any ap¬
parent extraneous compulsion from anyone; and assume, further, that
He knew the fate of all His angels before they came into being, because
within His providence existed all the causes for which those angels must
be found wanting in the future and must remain for all time things of evil
and demons in His sight, as nearly all our opponents say: then, without
doubt, it follows ineluctably that those angels could never remain good.
518 Catharist Literature

holy, or humble with their Lord, in whose power of necessity all things
occurred from eternity, except to the extent to which God himself had
knowledge from the beginning. For one who knows fully all things that
shall come to pass is powerless, in so far as he is self-consistent, to do
anything except that which he himself has known from eternity that he
shall do. This I prove.
[8] On Impossibility.—For I say that just as it is impossible for that
which is past not to be in the past, so it is impossible for that which is in
the future not to be in the future. This is especially true in God, who
from the beginning understood and knew that which would come to pass,
so that existence as something still to come was possible for an event
before it occurred. It was without doubt necessary that the future itself
should exist wholly in Him, because He would know and understand
from eternity all the causes which are required for bringing the future to
fruition. And it is the more true since, if there is only one First Prin¬
ciple, God himself is the sole cause of all causes; and above all if it is a
fact, as the opponents of truth assert, that God does whatever pleases
himself and His might is not affected by anyone.
I say further: If God understood all things from the beginning and
knew that His angels would in the future become demons, because of
the character which He himself gave them from the beginning (because
all the causes which would make those angels become demons in the
future arose entirely within His providence and it did not please God to
make them otherwise than He did), it of necessity fol lows that the afore¬
said angels could never in any way have avoided becoming demons. And
this is particularly true because it is impossible that anything which God
knows to be future may be in any way changed so that it does not come
to pass in the future—above all, in Him who from eternity knows the
future completely, as we have just seen explained.
How, then, can the unlearned say that the aforesaid angels could re¬
main good, holy, and humble with their Lord for all time, since it was
from eternity utterly impossible in God? They are therefore by the most
valid reasoning forced to confess that, in accordance with their thesis,
God knowingly and in full awareness created and made His angels of
such imperfection from the beginning that they could in no way escape
evil. And so God himself, of whom the words good, holy, just, wise, and
righteous were used above, who is above all praise, as was previously
declared, was the whole cause and origin of all evil—which is obviously
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 519
to be denied. For this reason we are required to acknowledge two prin¬
ciples. One is good. The other is evil, the source and cause of the im¬
perfection of the angels and also of all evil.2®
[9] A Reply to the Foregoing.—But perchance someone will say:
The wisdom and providence which God himself had from the beginning,
induced in His own creatures no unavoidable necessity to do good or to
do evil. For this, perhaps, they might offer an illustration thus: If a
certain man in a mansion should see another man walking of his own free
will along a way,27 one might perchance say that it is not the wisdom
nor the foresight of him in the mansion which makes the other man walk
along the way, even though the former is fully cognizant of and sees the
way the other is going.
So with God. Although He knew fully and foresaw from eternity the
fate of all His angels, His wisdom and providence did not make His
angels become demons, but they became demons and things of evil by
their own will, because they did not wish to remain holy and humble
before their Lord, but wickedly puffed themselves up in pride against
Him.
[10] Refection of the Preceding Illustration.—One must in truth
reject this very misleading illustration. Since God in himself was—in the
view of our opponents—from the beginning wholly the cause of all His
angels, they indubitably derived exclusively and essentially from Him,
in a way that was pleasing to Him, the character, the formation or cre¬
ation,28 which God himself gave them. And, according to these persons,
that which the angels were, they were through Him wholly, in all their
the causes which made it inevitable for them to become demons in the
characteristics, nor did they derive anything at all from any other than
Him alone, nor did it please their God to create or make the angels
otherwise from the beginning. For these persons believe that had He so
wished, He could most easily have made them otherwise. And so it
seems clear that God did not seek to make His angels perfect from the
beginning, but knowingly and in full awareness endowed them with all
future. This was, of necessity, within the power of God, in whom all
things occur inevitably from eternity. Whence, the assertion that the
wisdom or providence of God did not cause His angels to become things
of evil and demons is not valid in the same sense as is the statement that
the foresight of the man in the mansion did not cause the other man to
walk along the way. Above all, this is true because he who walked along
520 Catharist Literature

the way is not the creature of him who is in the mansion, nor does he
have his being or even his strength from him. But if one had his strength
from the other and all the causes whatsoever which were necessary for
completion of that journey—just as the aforesaid angels, according to
the belief of our opponents, had them from their God—it would be
untrue to say that the foresight of the man in the mansion did not make
the other man walk along the way, for it is clear that the latter would
walk only because of the former, as is most plainly explained above with
reference to God. And so no man can rationally condemn those angels
when, owing to the character which they had from their Lord, they could
do no other than they did. In the same way that an Ethiopian cannot
change his skin or a leopard his spots,29 because of the nature which
they have from their maker, so the angels, if we accept the belief of our
opponents, could in no way avoid evil, because of the character which
their God gave to them from the beginning. This is a most wicked belief.
But now our opponents may, if they can, eagerly try another way of
escape. For they plainly say: Had He wished it, God might well from the
beginning have made His angels of such perfection that they would have
#

been quite unable to sin or to do evil, and this on three counts, which are:
that He is almighty, that He knows all things from eternity, and that
His omnipotence is not qualified by anyone. But God was not willing
to make them of such perfection; and they advance this reason: If God
had from the beginning made His angels of such perfection that they
could commit no sin or evil of any kind but inevitably must obey their
Lord, the Lord himself would have given them no thanks for their
obedience or service. For thus God could say to them: I give you no
thanks for your service, since you cannot act otherwise. Perhaps our
opponents might offer an illustration of this point: If a certain lord had
a servant “who knew the will of his lord” 80 in all things and could do
nothing at all except follow it, this lord they say, would give no thanks
at all to his servant for his service, because the latter would be unable to
act otherwise.
[11] On the Free Will of the Angels.—And thus, they say, God
created His angels of such nature from the beginning that they could at
their pleasure do good or evil; and they call this “free will” (liberum
arbitrium) or, according to some of them, “choice” (arbitrium), to wit,
a certain free strength or power by which he to whom it is given is
equally capable of good or evil. And so they insist that God in reason
59. Book of Two Principles (Part 1) 521
and justice could allot glory or punishment to the angels; that is to say,
they might receive punishment because they were able to do good and
did not. Thus God could reasonably say to them: “Come, ye blessed
of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was
thirsty and you gave me to drink,”81 and so on. This is as if He were to
say: You were able to refrain from giving but because you gave, there¬
fore do you in reason and justice possess the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world. Then, on the other hand, the Lord
himself could reasonably say to sinners: “Depart from me, you cursed,
into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels; for
I was hungry and you gave me not to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me
not to drink,”82 and so on. This is as if He were to say: You were able
to give and did not; therefore, by reason and justice will you go to the
fire eternal. For, they say, if they had no power at all to give Him to eat
or drink, by what reason could the Lord himself have said to them, “for
I was hungry and you gave me not to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me
not to drink,” and so on? Therefore, they affirm, God did not wish to
create His angels perfect, that is, of such perfection that they were quite
unable to sin or to do evil, for the Lord himself would have shown them
no favor for their service, as has already been said.
They also say that God was not willing to create the angels of such
nature that they could always do only evil and not good, because the
aforesaid angels could reasonably excuse themselves, saying: We were
unable to do anything but evil because of the character which you gave
us from the beginning. So they say that God created His angels of such
character from the beginning that they could do good and evil. As a
result the Lord himself could reasonably judge His angels, in that they
were able to sin and had not sinned, or they could refrain from sin
and had sinned. And thus our opponents unwisely exult at our expense.
[12] Refutation of the Thesis of Our Opponents.—I shall now clarify
what has just been said, namely, their declaration that if God had made
His angels perfect from the beginning; in such perfection that they
*

would have been unable to sin at all or to do evil, the Lord would have
given them no thanks for their service because they would have been
unable to do otherwise. I am convinced that their statement greatly
strengthens my position. For if God shows favor to anyone for his
service, this seems to me necessarily to follow: namely, that there is
522 Catharist Literature

something wanting to God and to His will, that He wishes for and
desires something done which does not yet exist, or that He desires to
have what He does not have. And so, pursuant to this, it seems that we
can serve God by fulfilling what is wanting to His will or by rendering
to Him something which He needs and desires, either for Himself or
for others, as the Gospel text quoted above clearly implies, to wit: “For
I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to
drink,” and so on; and again, “As long as you did it to one of these my
least brethren, you did it to me.” 88 And again, Christ said to Jerusalem,
“How often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth
gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not?” 34 And the
Lord, speaking through Ezechiel to Samaria, says, “Thy uncleanness is
execrable. Because I desired to cleanse thee and thou art not cleansed
from thy filthiness.” 85 From this it seems manifest that the will of God
and of His Son, Jesus Christ, was not then wholly fulfilled. This would
be impossible, were there only one First Principle, good, holy, just, and
perfect.
Hence, this is the basis on which we can serve God and Christ, when
we carry out their will with the aid of the true Father, namely, by
alleviating hunger and other hurtful things among the creatures of the
good Lord. Then the Lord himself may thank us for fulfilling that
which He wishes for and desires to exist. And this seems to uphold my
thesis, for neither God nor man can desire or wish anything unless first
He have that which He does not desire and which troubles Him, either
on His own account or on another’s behalf. In particular, to declare
that this Principle could be burdened with anything which He does not
desire, and that there could be something which could trouble Him
and make Him sorrowful on His own behalf or for others seems quite
in contradiction to the position of those who say that there is only one
First Principle, whole and perfect.
[This could not be]88 unless He were divided against Himself, harm¬
ful to His very self and His Son, that is to say, by Himself alone without
extraneous compulsion from anyone doing that which would be wholly
contrary to Himself and to His own in the future, that which would
make Him sad, sorrowful, and dolorous. For that Lord who, according
to our opponents, created male and female and all other living things
says in Genesis, “And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, he
said, ‘I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 523

earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the
fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.” 37 This the
true God most certainly would not do in and of himself, were there but
one First Principle, holy and perfect. However, the above text can be
interpreted as though He said: There is another, a principle of evil, which
makes my heart to sorrow by so acting against my creation that it
compels me to destroy the created from the face of the earth because
of their sins. This principle makes me repent that I made them, that is
to say, [makes me] suffer on their account. On the other hand, following
the doctrine of one Principle, the text is best understood thus: It
repenteth me that I have made them; namely, I shall have to undergo
suffering and pain in the future, through myself alone, because I made
them. And so it seems manifest, according to the doctrine of those per*
sons who believe that there is only one First Principle, that this God
and His Son, Jesus Christ, who, according to them are one and the same,
causes Himself sadness, sorrow, and suffering, bearing pain in Himself
without any extraneous intervention by anyone. But it is impossible and
wicked to believe this of the true God.
[13] On the Principle of Evil.—Therefore, it behooves us of necessity
to confess that there is another principle, one of evil, who works most
wickedly against the true God and His creation; and this principle seems
to move God against His own creation and the creation against its
God, and causes God himself to wish for and desire that which in and
of himself He could never wish for at all. Thus it is that through the
compulsion of the evil enemy God yearns and is wearied, relents, is
burdened, and is served by His own creatures. Whence God says to His
people through Isaiah: '‘But thou hast made me to serve with thy sins,
thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities”;38 and again, “I am weary of
bearing them.”39 And Malachi says, “You have wearied the Lord with
your words.” 40 And David says, “And [he] repented according to the
multitude of His mercies.”41 And the Apostle says in his first Epistle to
the Corinthians, “For we are God’s coadjutors.” 42 Of the compulsion
of God, however, the Lord himself says to Satan in the Book of Job, “But
thou hast moved me against him, that I should afflict him without
cause.” 43 And through Ezechiel the same Lord says, “And when they
caught the souls of my people, they gave life to their souls. And they
violated me among my people, for a handful of barley and a piece of
bread, to kill souls which should not die and to save souls alive which
524 Catharist Literature

should not live.” 44 And the Lord, lamenting over His people, says
through Isaiah: “Because I called and you did not answer; I spoke and
you did not hear, and you did evil in my eyes, and you have chosen the
things that displease me.” 45
And so it appears plainly that this concept of how one may serve God
buttresses my argument. For if there were only one First Principle,
holy, just, and good, as has been declared of the true Lord God in the
foregoing, He would not make Himself sorrowful, sad, or dolorous;
neither would He bear pain in himself, nor grow weary or repent, nor
be aided by anyone, nor be burdened with the sins of anyone, nor yearn
or wish for anything to be done which was delayed in coming to pass,
since nothing at all could be done contrary to His will; nor could He
be moved by anyone or injured, nor could there be anything which
would trouble God, but all things would obey Him from overwhelming
necessity. And most especially would this be true because all things
would be by Him and in Him and of Him,46 in all their dispositions, if
there were only one First Principle, holy and just, as I have shown
above in discussing the true God.
[14] On Service to God.—From this comes the basis for our service
to God, in that we may fulfill His works, or rather, that God may con¬
summate through us that which He proposes and wishes to be done. In
this wise He achieved salvation of His people through the Lord Jesus,
although Christ did nothing good through himself or even by free will.
For He said of himself: “I cannot of myself do anything”;47 and again,
“But the Father, who abideth in me, he doth the works.” 48 And so, we
serve God when we fulfill His will with His help, not that we are able
through free will to do anything good of which He himself is not the
cause and principle. Thus, the Blessed James says in his Epistle, “Every
best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the
And in the Gospel of John, Christ says No man
44
Father of Lights 11

come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him ”50 And
of himself, He said: “I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I
44
judge”;51 and again But the Father, who abideth in me, he doth the
11
works And the Apostle says to the Ephesians: “For by grace you
saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God
11
of works, that no man may glory And the same Apostle says
the Romans, “So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth
but of God that showeth mercy 11
And to the Philippians, he says
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 525

"‘Being confident of this very thing, that He who hath begun a good
work in you will perfect it unto the day of our Lord Christ Jesus”;55 and
again, “For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish,
according to His good will.” 56 And in his second Epistle to the Corin¬
thians the same Apostle says: “And such confidence we have through
Christ toward the Lord. Not that we are sufficient to think anything of
ourselves as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who also hath
made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter but in the
spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.” 57 And John the
Baptist said, “A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him
from heaven.” 58 And David says: “Unless the Lord build the house,
they labor in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watch-
eth in vain that keepeth it.” 59 And Jeremiah says, “I know, O Lord, that
the way of a man is not his, neither is it in a man to walk and to direct
his steps.” 60 And Paul says to the Corinthians, “But by the grace of
God I am what I am.” 61 And in the parables of Solomon it is written:
"‘Counsel and equity is mine, prudence is mine, strength is mine. By me
kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things. By me princes rule and the
mighty decree justice”;82 and again, “The steps of a man are guided
by the Lord; but who is the man that can understand his own way.” 63
And in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ says: “All things are delivered to
me by my Father; and no one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither
doth anyone know the Father but the Son and he to whom it shall
please the Son to reveal Him.” 64 And in the Gospel of John, He says
a

of himself: “I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man cometh to
the Father, but by me”;65 and again, “For without me you can do no¬
thing.” 66 And in the Gospel of the Blessed Luke, He says, “Strive to
enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter and
shall not be able.” 67
[15] On Destroying the Concept of Free Will.—From this it is quite
evident that we cannot serve God by doing anything good by free will, as
a result of which He would give thanks to us as if for our own individual
strength and power—that is, a good of which He is not the cause and
principle, as was plainly pointed out above. And most especially is this
so because we have no powers at all of ourselves, as the Blessed Peter
says in the Acts of the Apostles, in regard to the lame man made whole:
“Ye men of Israel, why wonder you at this or why look you upon us, as
if by our own strength or power we had made this man to walk?” 68
 Catharist Literature

This is as if he had said: Not we but “the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”60 did this.
And so it clearly seems that whatever of good is found in the creatures
of God is directly from Him and of Him,70 and He brings the good into
being and is its cause, as was explained above. If evil, however, is found
in the people of God,71 it is not truly from God himself, nor of Him, nor
does He bring it into being, nor was He nor is He its cause, as Jesus the
son of Sirach says, “He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and
He hath given no man license to sin.” 72 This is to be understood to
mean that He did not of himself absolutely and directly do so. And
also, no evil can come from a creature of God, itself good, unless there
be a cause of evil. For through Ezechiel the Lord says: “The rod hath
blossomed, pride hath budded. Iniquity is risen up into a rod of impiety;
not of them nor of the people nor of the noise of them” 73—therefore,
from some other source! And Christ says in the Gospel of Matthew: “The
kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his
field; but while men were asleep, his enemy came by night and over¬
sowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way.” 74 And David says:
“O God, the heathens are come into thine inheritance; they have de¬
filed thy holy temple; they have made Jerusalem as a place to keep
fruit.” 75 And the Lord through the prophet Joel says: “For a nation is
come up upon my land, strong and without number; his teeth are like
the teeth of a lion, and his cheek teeth as of a lion’s whelp. He hath laid
my vineyard waste, and hath pilled off the bark of my fig tree; he hath
stripped it bare and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white.” 76
So one may clearly understand that pride and wickedness and impiety,
the weeds and the pollution of the holy temple of God, and the wasting
of His vineyard, cannot proceed exclusively and essentially from the
good God or from a good creature of His which is wholly from Him in
all its characteristics. It now follows, therefore, that there is another
principle, one of evil, who is the source and cause of all pride and
wickedness, of all defilement of the people, and of all other evils.
[16] On the Contention of My Opponents That God Did Not Wish
to Create His Angels Perfect.—I now intend to discuss my opponents’
contention that God did not wish to create His angels perfect, that is,
of such perfection that they should forever be capable only of good
actions, never of evil, nor, on the other hand, that they should be forever
capable only of evil, never of good; but, in their words, that He created
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 527

them of such nature that they could do good or do evil according to

their pleasure, as may be seen set forth above.77
Now, I say that if it did not please God to create His angels of such
nature that they were capable only of always doing good, never evil, or
capable of always doing evil, never good, but it pleased Him to create
them of such nature that they were capable of doing both good and
evil, the statement must be understood to mean “capable of so acting
at different times.” For it is impossible that angels could have been
so created by God that simultaneously, at one and the same time,
they were capable of doing both good and evil. From this, if we accept
the doctrine stated, it follows of necessity that the aforesaid angels did
good acts and evil acts, not merely good alone or evil alone, but in veyr
truth both good and evil. And so it seems clear that these angels could
in no way for all time escape evil, because of the character which they
had from their Lord. And thus, according to this, God would be the
cause and origin of that evil; which is an impossibility, and it is foolish
to suggest it.
And yet perhaps at this point my opponents, speaking calmly at first
and then shouting, would cry out, saying: Indeed these angels were al¬
ways capable of doing both good and evil, had they so desired, because
they had free will from God, that is, a free strength or power by which
they were equally capable of good and evil at their pleasure. And thus,
they would declare, God is not the First Cause of that evil, because the
angels sinned by the free will given to them, by their own choice.
[17] Proof That There Is No Free Will.—If anyone should scrutinize
minutely the arguments set forth above, he would see that my position
is not weakened by the concept of free will, meaning a free strength or
power which our opponents say was given by God, by which the angels
were capable of good or evil at their pleasure. Yet, in the opinion of
the wise, it will appear impossible for anyone to have a potency for two
contraries simultaneously, at one and the same time; that is, for one to
have a potency for doing good for all time and for doing evil for all
time. And especially is this true in God, who has complete knowledge
of the future, and according to whose wisdom all things are done of
necessity from eternity.
And it is particularly puzzling how the good angels would have been
capable of hating goodness like unto their own, which existed from
eternity as did its cause, and of delighting in wickedness, which did not
528 Catharist Literature

yet exist and which is the exact opposite of goodness; and this without
cause if, as the unenlightened say, there was no cause of evil at all. And
especially is this so because it is written in the Book of Jesus the son of
Sirach: “Every beast loveth its like, so also every man him that is
nearest to himself. All flesh shall consort with the like to itself and
every man shall associate himself to his like.” 78 And again, “Birds resort
unto their like, so truth will return to them that practice her.” 79 And so
it seems clear that the good angels would have sought rather to choose
the good like unto themselves, which existed from eternity, than to
spurn good and cleave to evil, which was not in existence (nor indeed
was its cause [Satan], if I follow the belief of my opponents); yet it
does not seem possible that anything can come into being without a
cause. For so it is written: “It is impossible that whatever has a begin¬
ning should have no cause”; and again, “Everything which changes from
potency to effect needs a cause by which it can be brought into effect.”
And also, according to my opponents, that which existed, namely good,
had less effect than that which did not exist, namely evil;80 and this
despite the fact that it is written, “A thing must have existence before
it can have an effect.” And also, one should clearly recognize that if a
cause should wholly retain its original character, nothing would result
from it other than that which it first produced. For every new effect is a
result of a new factor of some sort, as is written: “For if something which
was not an agent becomes an agent, this inevitably takes place because of
a new factor of some sort.” 81 From this, one must realize that if the
dispositions of the agent were to continue just as they originally were,
and if it were, up to that point, affected by nothing new either internally
or externally, assuredly the agent would have less the function of
causing-to-exist than that of nonexistence, and nonexistence would per¬
sist indefinitely. For just as from diversity something different may arise,
so from uniformity sameness persists.82
And if, in fact, none of the angels could have sinned without free
will, God would in no wise have given it, since He would have known
that from this cause alone His kingdom would be corrupted. Moreover,
the corruption of the angels would of necessity have come from the God
who “is above all praise,” 83 which is a wicked thing to suppose. It
follows from this that there is another principle, one of evil, who is the
source and cause of the corruption of the angels and of all evil.
[18] On Free Will: That the Angels Had It Not.—Whence, it is
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 529
obvious to the wise that the angels discussed above never had any such
choice from God, that is, such power to desire, to know, and to do only
good for all time, and not evil. If they had had, they would from over¬
whelming necessity have done and desired good for all time, never evil.
Therefore, by what reasoning, by what audacity, can the unenlighten¬
ed say that the aforesaid angels could indeed always do only good if they
chose? For from God, who knows the future completely, they had no
potency, desire, knowledge, will, nor any other attribute (causa) whatso¬
ever by which they could wholly avoid evil, as was made quite clear
above. It may somehow be said, among men who are completely ignorant
of the future and of all the causes which necessitate doing good or evil
for all time or on different occasions, that the angels had such strength
or power from God that they could do good and evil for all time. It
seems, however, most clearly false in God, who has complete knowledge
of the future, who knows from eternity all causes (the effect of which
is to render it impossible for that which is future not to be in the future),
according to whose wisdom all things are of necessity done from eternity.
So it happens that conflicting statements are many times heard among
men who are entirely ignorant of the future or of the truth of things; to
wit, when they declare that what never shall be may be, and what most
certainly shall be cannot be. For instance, we sometimes say that Peter
may live until tomorrow and that he may die today. Although it is im¬
possible for Peter both to live until tomorrow and to die today, yet, be¬
cause we are ignorant of the future, as of all the causes which control
the life and death of Peter, we affirm that which is impossible to be
possible, and that which is possible we say to be impossible. If, however,
we knew the future completely and also all the causes which control the
life or death of Peter, then we would not say that Peter may live until
tomorrow and that he may die today. For if we knew that Peter would
die today, then we would say that it is clearly necessary for Peter to die
today, or that it is impossible for him to live until tomorrow. And if we
knew that he would live until tomorrow, then we would say that it is
clearly necessary for him to live until tomorrow, or that it is impossible
for Peter to die today. However, because we do not know the future,
we put forward the possible for the impossible and the impossible for
the possible. But this cannot be true of Him who has complete knowledge
of all the future.
I say further: Suppose a certain man was in a house with Peter and
530 Catharist Literature

unquestionably saw him. And another man outside this house inquired of
the one within, “Can it be that Peter is in the house?” If he who knows
unquestionably that Peter is in the house because he sees him before his
very eyes should answer the other, “It may be that Peter is in the house
and it may be that he is not,” there is no doubt that he would be speaking
wrongly and contrary to his own knowledge in saying, “It may be that
Peter is not in the house.” For he knows without any doubt whatever
that Peter was in the house because he saw him before his very eyes.
So I say of the free will said by my opponent to be given by God: As
pertains to the God who knows wholly all the future, in whom are known
from eternity all the causes which render it impossible for that which is
future not to be in the future, in whose wisdom are all things of necessity
done from eternity, the aforesaid angels never had from Him a free
capacity for freedom to choose, to know or to do good for all time. This
is so especially because God himself without doubt knew and saw the
end of all His angels before they came into being, just as the man who
saw Peter and knew him unquestionably to be in the house would be
speaking wrongly if he had said, “It may be that Peter is not in the
house.” So I say in the matter of free will of the angels in God that it
was never true to say that the angels could not sin; this is especially
true in respect of a God who wholly knows the future. And to say that
they did not wish to sin signifies nothing, because good angels do not,
without a cause, wish to do evil. For the wise realize that it is impossible
for the good, without a cause, to hate good and desire evil, since, as was
stated above, nothing at all can exist without a cause. It was, therefore,
necessary in God for those angels to become things of evil and demons
in the future, because within His providence existed without exception
all the causes by which they must be found wanting in the future. With¬
out doubt, it was impossible in Him that they could remain good and
holy for all time.
In the view of men who are ignorant of the future and of the whole
truth it may, perhaps, somehow be said that the aforesaid angels could
both do good and do evil for all time. But in the view of men who know
the whole truth, be it of the future or of all causes which are requisite to
doing good for all time or to so doing on different occasions, it is absolu¬
tely impossible that the angels could have freedom to do good for all
time, together with freedom to do evil for all time; rather, in their view,
it would be wholly necessary for these angels to be found wanting in
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 531
the future. And in the opinion of such men it would also be an impossi¬
bility for these angels to remain good and holy for all time, for they also
realize that all causes are not fitted for these angels to both do good for
all time and yet act in a completely evil manner in the future. Whence,
to the wise it is quite evident that the aforesaid angels never had from
God—as the statement of the dullards asserts—a free capacity or the
freedom to do good for all time, but from overwhelming necessity [must]
act in a completely evil manner in the future, as was clearly explained in
the preceding. To believe that they had [free will] is most evil and
foolish.
[19] On the Thesis of Master William.—I have now no intention of
overlooking the thesis of Master William,84 albeit he may seem to be
wise in many matters. For I have heard him discussing ideas such as
the following: that the angels were not made perfect by God from the
beginning, because their God could not make them perfect. The reason
for this is that God could not and cannot make anyone like Himself or
coequal with Himself in any way; and although God himself may be
called almighty by many, yet this He cannot do at all. And thus, in so
much as they were inferior to God in beauty and greatness—that is to
say, as they were not like Him or coequal with Him—these angels could
be found wanting to the extent that they could covet His beauty and
greatness. So, one reads of Lucifer in Isaiah: “I will exalt my throne
above the stars. I will be like the Most High.” 85 And thus, such a one
would perhaps say that on this account we cannot reasonably blame
God for not making His angels so perfect that they could not have
coveted His beauty and greatness at all, because their God could not do
so, as is stated above.
I have decided to refute the doctrine just stated with the most cogent
argument. For if we cannot reasonably blame God because He could not
make his angels so perfect that they would not covet His beauty and
greatness, for the reason that He could not make them like Himself or
coequal with Himself, much less therefore can we blame those angels
because they could by no means avoid coveting the beauty and great¬
ness of God as a result of the character which they had from their maker;
in other words, because He could not make them so perfect that they
would not covet His beauty and greatness.
I say again: If God could not make His angels of such perfection that
they would not so covet His beauty and greatness and thus would not,
532 Catharist Literature

for this reason, become demons, neither could those angels avoid that
evil in any way. And so, according to certain persons,86 it necessarily
follows that all angels and indeed men who now are saved are bound
always to covet that beauty and greatness and always to sin against their
God by this covetousness, and of necessity to become demons because
of it, just as they say befell the other angels. And this is true particularly
because God could not nor cannot nor ever will be able to make anyone
like Himself or coequal with Himself in any way.
And if Master William should say: They who were saved could not
covet any more or sin, because they were enlightened! and subtly
warned by the punishment of the other angels, who became demons
through their covetousness, this may be answered as follows: God, who
above was called good, holy, and just, would be the sole cause and prin¬
ciple of the punishment and ruin of all His angels. For He would have
inflicted eternal punishment on His angels without reason or justice, in
that He could not make them of such perfection that they would not covet
His beauty and greatness, nor could those angels in any way avoid that
evil, because they had been created at an earlier time than the other
angels, who were enlightened by their punishment and fall. Indeed, those
angels, who, as many say, became demons, could not be enlightened and
warned by the punishment of other angels, because there were no other
angels created before them. And so the aforesaid angels could with reason
bring most very great complaint against their Lord for afflicting them
with those countless punishments, the more so because He could not
make them so perfect that they would not covet His beauty and greatness;
therefore those angels could not by any means avoid that covetousness.
Hence, it is utterly amazing that it can ever enter the mind of any wise
man that God, who is good, holy, and just, should condemn His angels
for all time, afflicting them with eternal torture, because He could not
make them of such perfection that they would not envy His beauty and
greatness, nor could they ever in any way receive that perfection from
Him.
[20] Concerning the Angels.—And if it be objected: Although God
cannot make His angels like Himself or coequal with Himself, yet He
could indeed have perfected them, had He so wished, to such a degree
that they would never have envied His beauty. But He did not choose to
do this, because they had free will from God, that is, the free capacity or
59. Book of Two Principles (Part I) 533

the freedom to envy or not to envy His beauty and greatness, at their
pleasure. Thus, there is no validity in what has been said above to the
effect that God could not make His angels so perfect that they would
not envy His beauty and greatness, because He could not make them
like Himself or coequal with Himself in any way.
And thus it is obvious, if we accept the doctrine discussed above, that
God did not choose to make His angels so perfect that they could not
envy His beauty and greatness; but, knowingly and in full awareness,
He made them of such imperfection that they could not in the least
avoid covetousness, and He bestowed on them all the causes by which
He knew those angels would fall in the future; and particularly [is it
evident] in Him, who wholly knows all the future, in whom all causes
by which those angels were to be covetous in the future were known
from the beginning, by whom all things are done of necessity from
eternity, as was made sufficiently clear above where free will was dis¬
cussed. And so, to the wise, it is obvious, according to the above doc¬
trine, that God cannot absolve Himself on rational grounds, because He
did not choose to avert that evil in any way, but knowingly and in full
awareness created His angels of such imperfection that it was from
eternity impossible in Him for them not to covet His beauty and
greatness.
From this one may know that those angels did not have from God a
free will by which they could entirely avoid covetousness, and especially
not from a God who knows directly all the future, in whom it is impos¬
sible that that which is future, with all the causes which determine it, can
fail to be in the future. And this is so particularly because, if there is only
one First Principle, He is directly the cause of all causes. It follows
therefore of necessity, according to the said doctrine, that God would
be the first cause of all envy and indeed of all evil, as is written, “He
who provides the occasion for harm should be held to have done the
harm.” 87 One most certainly cannot believe this of the true God.

[//. On Creation]
[1] The Contention of Our Opponents That God Is the Creator or
Maker of All Things.—Although our opponents have no argument
based on truth, yet they may perchance still spurn the arguments set
forth above and loudly assert: These words deserve no credence at all,
534 Catharist Literature

for they represent the opinions of men and the argumentations of

philosophers, of which the Apostle says to the Colossians, “Beware
lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to
the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not
%

according to Christ.” 1 And so, perchance, they might say that one need
give absolutely no credence to two principles, for the reasons advanced
above because they were not at all confirmed by testimony of the Holy
Scriptures 2 and, in particular, because one cannot discover through
biblical texts that there is any god other than the true Lord God,
creator or maker of all, omnipotent, eternal or everlasting, ancient,
without beginning or end.
To prove that the true Lord God is the creator or maker of all, they
may perhaps vigorously fortify their argument by the following texts
and others like them. It is written in the Apocalypse: “Thou art worthy,
O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, because Thou
hast created all things, and for Thy will they were and have been
created”;3 and again: “And the angel whom I saw standing upon the
sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and he swore by
Him that liveth forever and ever, who created heaven and the things
which are therein, and the earth and the things which are in it, and the
sea and the things which are therein, that time shall be no longer.” 4 And
the Apostle says to the Hebrews, “For every house is built by some man,
but He that created all things is God.” 5 And Jesus the son of Sirach
says: “He that liveth forever created all things together”;6 and [the
Book of Wisdom says,] “For He created all things that they might be.” 7
And the apostles in their Acts say, “Lord, thou art He that didst make
heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.” 8 And Paul,
in the same book, says to the Athenians: “That I preach to you God,
who made the world and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven
and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is He served
with men’s hands as though He needed anything, seeing it is He who
giveth to all life and breath and all things.” 9 And John in his Gospel says,
“All things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing that
was made.” 10
[2] That God Is Called Father of All.—Not only is the Lord our God
called the creator or the maker of all, but He is called the Father of all,
as the Blessed Paul says to the Ephesians: “One Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all
59. Book of Two Principles (Part II) 535

and in us all.” 11 And again, “For this cause I bow my knees to the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven and
earth is named.” 12 And in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the same
Apostle says, “Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are
all things and we unto Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things and we by Him.” 13 And he says to the Romans, “For of Him
and by Him and in Him are all things.”14 Also, all things were created in
the Lord Jesus Christ, and by Him and in Him all things were created,
as Paul says to the Colossians of Christ, “who is the image of the in¬
visible God, the first-born of every creature; for in Him were all things
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones,
or dominations, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by
Him and in Him. And He is before all, and in Him all things consist.” 15
Thus our opponents appear to confirm their doctrine many times
over by these texts and others like them.
[3] On the Omnipotence, the Eternity, and the Sempiternity of God.
—Our opponents may indeed advance certain passages from Holy
Scriptures to show that the aforesaid Lord our God is omnipotent and
eternal or everlasting and ancient, insisting that there is no other power
or domination but His, as David says: “For I have known that the Lord
is great, and our God is above all gods. Whatsoever the Lord pleased
he hath done, in heaven, in earth, in the sea, and in all the deeps.” 16
And the Apostle, in the first Epistle to Timothy, says, “I charge thee
before God, who quickeneth all things and before Christ Jesus, who
gave testimony under Pontius Pilate, a good confession, that thou keep
the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ; which in His times He shall show, the King who is the
Blessed and only Mighty, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords.” 17
And in the Apocalypse is written, “I give Thee thanks, O Lord God Al¬
mighty.” 18 And the Apostle says to the Romans, “For there is no power
but from God, and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God.” 19
Moreover, that the true Lord God is eternal, or everlasting and
ancient, is shown by the following texts: David says, “.., that ye may
relate it in another generation. For this is God, our God unto eternity,
and forever and ever. He shall rule us forevermore.” 20 And Isaiah says,
“For thus saith the Lord High and Eminent that inhabiteth eternity.” 21
And the Apostle says to the Romans, “According to the revelation of the
mystery which was kept secret from eternity (which now is made mani-
536 Catharist Literature

fest by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the precept of the

eternal God).”22
Of the sempiternity of this true God Isaiah says, “The Lord is the
everlasting God, who hath created the ends of the earth.” 23 And Jere¬
miah says, “But the Lord is the true God, He is the living God and the
everlasting king.” 24
Of the antiquity of the Lord, Daniel says: “I beheld therefore in the
vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds
of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days”;25 and again, “Till
the Ancient of days came.” 26
Thus indeed they might say that, because of these texts quoted and
others like them, one must firmly believe in one sole God, Lord and
omnipotent Prince, who is eternal or everlasting, and ancient, as seems to
be made manifest above.
[4] A Reply to the Objections Raised Above.—It is my intent, with
the aid of Jesus Christ, to resolve their objections in accordance with my
concept. Now, in the first place, I wish to clarify by scriptural references
the precise meaning of “creating” and “making,” in connection with
which our Lord God is called “creator” and “maker” of all; and second¬
ly, I wish to show what is meant by “all” and other terms of universality
in the Holy Scriptures.27
I perceive the words “to create” or “to make” used throughout the
Scriptures in three senses.28 Now, I say: It is “to create” or “to make”
when the true Lord God adds to the essences of those beings who were
already exceedingly good something which ordains them to aid those
who are to be saved. In this sense, our Lord Jesus Christ was ordained
bishop by the true Lord God and “anointed with the Holy Spirit and
with power,” so that He could free all those “oppressed by the devil”;29
and in the same sense the angels and ministers of God the Father were
made so that they might aid those who receive the inheritance of salva¬
tion. Sometimes the words “to create” or “to make” are used when God
himself adds something to the essences of those who had become evil
and disposes them to good works. I also call it “to create” or “to make”
when something is permitted by God himself to him who is wholly evil,
or to his minister, who cannot achieve what he desires unless the good
Lord himself endures his deceit patiently for a time, to His own honor
and to the shame of that most wicked enemy of His.
[5] On the First Meaning of “Creating” or “Making ”—As for the
59. Book of Two Principles (Part II) 537

first meaning of “creating” or “making,” I have sought to provide the

clearest proof as it appears in passages from Holy Scripture: Thus the
Blessed Paul, referring to the creation of our Lord Jesus Christ, says to
the Colossians, “Lie not to one another; stripping [yourselves] of the
old man with his deeds, and putting on the new, him who is renewed
unto knowledge of God according to the image of Him that created
him.”30 And the same Apostle says to the Ephesians, “And be renewed
in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, who according to
God is created in justice and holiness of truth.” 31 And through Isaiah
the Lord says: “Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the
clouds rain the just; let the earth be opened and bud forth a savior, and
let justice spring up together; I the Lord have created him.”32
Of the “making” of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, moreover, the
Blessed Peter says in the Acts of the Apostles, “Therefore let all the
house of Israel know most certainly that God hath made both Lord and
Christ, this same Jesus whom you have crucified.” 33 And Paul says to
the Hebrews: “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vo¬
cation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, who
is faithful to Him that made Him”;34 and again, “For to which of the
angels hath He said at any time, ‘Thou art my Son, today have I be¬
gotten Thee’?” 35
Moreover, in regard to the making of the good spirits and angels,36
who were made by the true Lord God, the Blessed Apostle says to the
Hebrews: “And to the angels indeed He saith, ‘He that maketh his
angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire’ 37 and again, “Are they
not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who shall receive the
inheritance of salvation?” 38 And the Lord says through Isaiah, “Go, ye
swift angels,” 39 and so on.
[6] That “to Create” or “to Make” May Mean to Create or Make
from Something, as from Some Pre-existent Matter.—From the fore¬
going, one must firmly believe that our Lord Jesus Christ and the other
good angels of the true Father are not said to be “created” or “made” by
the true Lord God in the sense that their essence originated only with
this creation or production, nor [is it said] that their essence was con¬
stituted out of nothingness in the sense apparently asserted by our op¬
ponents, who believe that for God “to create” is to make something ex¬
clusively and essentially from nothing. Their opinion is most clearly
refuted by the testimony of Holy Scriptures. For the angel of the Lord
538 Catharist Literature

says to Joseph in the Gospel of Matthew, “Joseph, son of David, fear

not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is
of the Holy Spirit”40 He did not say, “is created from nothing.” And in
the Book of Wisdom it is written, “For Thy almighty hand, which made
the world of matter without form, was not unable,”41 and so on. And
4

in Genesis it is written, “And God formed man of the slime of the earth,
and breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living
ft

soul.” 42 And Jesus the son of Sirach says: “The most High hath created
medicines out of the earth”;43 and again, “God created man of the earth
and made him after his own image.” 44
And so it is clear that in the judgment of the wise, we may with most
excellent reason reject the doctrine of our opponents by the testimony of
the Scriptures.
[7] On Creating and Making.—Therefore my exposition given above
is true; to wit, that “to create” or “to make” means to add something to
the essences of those who already were exceedingly good, as has been
demonstrated with sufficient clarity in the foregoing. This is the way I
construe its meaning. The good are said to be created and made by the
true Lord God, that is, formed by Him for the salvation of sinners. It is
in this sense that the Apostle speaks of our Lord Jesus Christ to the
Hebrews: “ ‘What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of
man, that Thou visiteth him?’ ”45 and so on; and “ ‘Thou hast set him
over the works of thy hands.’ ” 46 And David, in the character of Christ,
as we believe, says, “But I am appointed king by Him over Zion His holy
mountain.” 47 And so, according to this concept, this creation or pro¬
duction of the good is a noble one, of which, for instance, Ecclesiastes
says: “He hath made all things good in their time”;48 and again, “I have
learned that all the works which God hath made continue forever; we
cannot add anything nor take away from those things which God hath
made that He may be feared.” 49 And Jesus the son of Sirach says, “All
the works of the Lord are exceeding good.” 50 And in Ecclesiasticus is
written, “O how desirable are all His works; all these things live and
remain forever, and for every use all things obey Him.” 51 And David
says: “How great are Thy works, O Lord? Thou hast made all things in
wisdom”;52 and again, “By Thy ordinance the day goeth on, for all
things serve Thee”;58 and again, “For He spoke and they were made, He
commanded and they were created. He hath established them forever
and for ages of ages.” 54
59. Book of Two Principles (Part II) 539

And so it clearly seems that this noble creation and production of the
good is established forever and for ages of ages by the true Lord God.
But if one follows the doctrine of our opponents as I interpret it, this
cannot be so, most particularly if all the heavens which now are, and the
earth, and all the elements are to be completely destroyed by the heat of
fire as, in their opinion as I interpret it, the Blessed Peter testified.55
[8] On the Second Meaning of “Creating” and “Making”,—I now
intend to treat of the second meaning of “making” and “creating,” of
which I said above that “to create” and “to make” mean to add some¬
thing to the essence of those who had been made evil which disposes
them unto good works.58 For the Apostle says to the Ephesians, “For
we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which
God hath prepared that we should walk in them.” 57 And David says:
“All expect of Thee that Thou give them food in season. What Thou
givest to them, they shall gather up; when Thou openest Thy hand, they
shall all be filled with good. But if Thou tumest away Thy face, they
shall be troubled; Thou shalt take away their breath, and they shall fail
and shall return to their dust. Thou shalt send forth Thy spirit, and they
shall be created; and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.” 58
[9] Explanation of the Text of Isaiah “I Am the Lord, and There Is
None Else ”—The Lord says through Isaiah: “I am the Lord and there
is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and
create evil, I the Lord that do all these things.” 59 This text can be inter¬
preted as though its meaning were: There is no Lord but I who “form the
light”—which is Christ, who is the “true light, which enlighteneth every
man that cometh into this world,” 80 as the Blessed John says in his
Gospel. And I who “create darkness”—which means to ordain the
Gentile people to good works, as was set forth above; they who were
become part of darkness, walking in darkness, as one reads in the Gospel,
“The people of the Gentiles that walked in darkness hath seen great
light.”81 And the Apostle says to the Ephesians: “For you were hereto¬
fore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the
light.” 82 “I make peace”—that is, Christ, who was our peace, as the
Apostle says of Him to the Ephesians, “For He is our peace who hath
made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition”;63
or [Christ], who made peace between the people of the Gentiles and the
people of Israel, as is contained in the same Epistle: “[That He might
make the two in himself] into one new man, making peace, and might
540 Catharist Literature

reconcile both to God in one body. And coming, He preached peace to

you that were afar off and peace to them that were nigh; for by Him
we have access both in one Spirit to the Father.” 64 And I “create evil”—
that is, I appoint the people of Israel, who had become evil, unto good
works, as Christ says of them in the Gospel of Matthew, “If you then,
being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more
will your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask
him?”65 It is in this sense that the Lord is said to create darkness and
evil. But this is not possible, according to the opinion of our opponents,
who believe that “to create” is to make something from nothing. And
their opinion is most clearly disproved. For surely, if the true Lord God
exclusively and essentially created darkness and evil, undoubtedly He
would be the cause and beginning of all evil, which is an utterly vain
and wicked conclusion.
[10] On the Making of Those Who Had Become Evil.—Moreover,
Paul says to the Corinthians in his second Epistle, in regard to the
making of those who had become evil, “But our sufficiency is from God,
who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter
but in the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.” 66 And
again, the same Apostle says to the Colossians, “Giving thanks to God
the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the
saints in the light of truth.” 67 And he says to the Corinthians, “If, then,
any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away; behold
all things are made new.”88 Also, of this making, as is believed, the
Blessed John says in the Apocalypse, “And He that sat on the throne
said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ ”89 Now, according to this inter¬
pretation, our Lord God is called “creator” or “maker” for constituting
sinners unto good works, as is clearly enough explained in the fore¬
going.
[11] On the Third Meaning of “Creating” and “Making”—In regard
to the third meaning of “creating” and “making”—about which I re¬
marked above that one says “to create” or “to make” when something
is permitted by the true Lord God to the one who is wholly evil or to his
minister, who cannot accomplish Jiis desires unless the good Lord him¬
self suffers the deceit patiently for a time, to His own honor and to the
shame of His most wicked enemy—I intend to confirm my interpreta¬
tion by biblical proofs.
For the prophet Ezechiel says of the Assyrian king, who represents
59. Book of Two Principles (Pari II) 541

the devil:70 “The cedars in the paradise of God were not higher than he,
the fir trees did not equal his top, neither were the plane trees to be
compared with him for branches; no tree in the paradise of God was
like him in his beauty. For He made him beautiful and thick set with
many branches, and all the trees of pleasure that were in the paradise
of God envied him.” 71 And the Lord says through Isaiah: “I have
created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire and bringeth forth an
instrument for his work. And I have created the killer to destroy”;72 and
again, “I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create
darkness; I make peace and create evil, I the Lord that do all these
things.” 78 And David says, “This sea dragon which thou hast formed to
play therein.” 74 And in the Book of Job the Lord says to him, “Behold
behemoth, whom I made with thee; he eateth grass like an ox.” 75 Now,
if the Assyrian, the smith, the killer, the darkness, the evil, the dragon,
and the behemoth signify him who is the chief principle of all evil, one
must necessarily interpret the words, “to create” darkness and evil and
the killer, and so on, to mean that God endures from one who is His
most wicked enemy deceit and malice against His people for a time, in
order to permit them to be trampled underfoot for their sins. So our
Lord God is said “to make” the evil which, for our sins, He does not
forbid, just as Isaiah says, “But he that is the wise one hath brought evil,
and hath not removed his words.” 76 And through Jeremiah, the Lord
again says, “For I bring evil from the north and great destruction.” 77
And through Habakkuk the Lord also says, “For I will raise up the
Chaldeans, a bitter and swift nation, marching upon the breadth of the
earth to possess the dwelling places that are not their own.” 78 And the
Lord says through Amos: “Shall the trumpet sound in a city and the
people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city which the Lord hath
not done?”79 And the Blessed Job says, ‘The tabernacles of robbers
abound, and they provoke God boldly, whereas it is He that hath given
all into their hands.” 80 And the prophet Daniel says of the king of
Babylon: “Thou art a king of kings, and the God of heaven hath given
thee a kingdom, and strength, and power, and glory, and all places
wherein the children of men and the beasts of the field do dwell; He
hath also given the birds of the air into thy hand and hath put all things
under thy power.” 81 All this must be understood as occurring by the
sufferance of the Lord, because of the sins of the people, as Elihu says
in the Book of Job: “And upon nations and over all men He maketh a
542 Catharist Literature

man that is a hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people that
endures his reign because of the sins of the people. In this wise the
Apostle says to the Romans, “What if God, willing to show His wrath
and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of
wrath fitted for destruction, that He might show the riches of His glory
on the vessels of mercy.”83 This does not mean, however, that to do evil
may be a function directly and essentially of the true Lord God, for were
that the case—if there were no evil which the true Lord God had not
directly and essentially done—the true Lord God would be fundamen¬
tally the cause and beginning of all evil, which is an utterly vain and
foolish belief.
Whence, in accordance with our interpretation, we can most intel¬
ligibly conclude that God “created” darkness, evil, and murder; “made”
the Assyrian; and “formed” the dragon and the many other baneful
things noted in the Holy Scriptures; that is to say, He suffers them to
prevail over His people for their sins, and in consonance with this, evils
are said to be “done” by Him —that is, He gives sufferance for a time
to malice directed against His own. And in this sense we can freely con¬
u
cede that Satan was ‘created made” by the true Lord God—that
after he was given license to afflict Job—for by permission which he
obtained from the true Lord God he did that which he was unable to
achieve by himself. And so he can be said to be “made” by God—that is,
he was acknowledged as ruler over the people, not absolutely but, so to
speak, indirectly and nonessentially.84
And Satan is allowed not only to rule over sinners but also to tempt
the just, as is written in the Gospel of the Blessed Matthew about our
Lord Jesus Christ, “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to
be tempted by the devil.” 85 And the Blessed Mary says: “And immedi¬
ately the Spirit drove Him out into the desert. And He was in the desert
forty days and forty nights and was tempted by Satan.” 86 And the faith¬
ful Luke says: “And Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, returned from
the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert for the space of
forty days, and was tempted by the devil”;87 and again, “And the
temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a time.” 88
And the same thing may be noted in regard to the Blessed Job, as the
Lord himself says to Satan, “Behold, all that he hath is in thy hand.” 89
And in particular reference to Job the Lord again says, “Behold, he is
in thy hand; but yet save his life.” 90 And Job says of himself : “God
59. Book of Two Principles (Part II) 543
hath shut me up with the unjust man and hath delivered me into the
hands of the wicked”;91 and again, “Doth it seem good to Thee that
Thou shouldst calumniate me and oppress me, the work of Thy own
hands, and help the counsel of the wicked?” 92 And in the Gospel of
John, Christ says to Pilate, Satan’s minister, “Thou shouldst not have
any power against me unless it were given thee from above”;93 which
is to say, conceded to you, and this may be interpreted as meaning from
God. And in this way our Lord God is said “to create” evil when for
some reasonable cause He does not prohibit it. Of this one finds clear
confirmation in the case of the Blessed Job where in the Book of
Tobias one reads of Tobias: “Now this trial the Lord therefore permitted
to happen to him, that an example might be given to posterity of his
patience, as also of holy Job.” 94 And the Blessed James says, “You
have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the
Lord.” 95
That the aforesaid texts, moreover, properly should be so interpreted,
even according to the concept of those who believe that “to create”
means to make something from nothing, is proved as follows: The
Apostle says to Timothy, “For every creature of God is good, and noth¬
ing to be rejected.” 96 And Ecclesiastes says, “He hath made all things
good in their time.” 97 And it is written in the Book of Wisdom, “For
so much then as Thou art just, Thou orderest all things justly.” 98 There¬
fore, if God made and created and justly ordered all things good, He
did not create the darkness or evil, nor did He form the dragon. Nor
are even our opponents wont to believe that God had formed the devil
as a dragon, but rather as a beautiful angel, nor that He had created
angels as demons and things of darkness, but rather as angels shining
and luminous.
[12] That God Did Not Create Darkness or Evil.—Whence, one
should give no credence at all to the belief that the true Lord God
absolutely and directly created darkness or evil, especially from nothing,
which our opponents think is the proper meaning of “to create.” And
most particularly this is so because the Blessed John can say in the first
Epistle: “That God is light and in him there is no darkness,”99 nor, con¬
sequently, [darkness] through Him. Therefore, darkness does not fall
within that all-inclusive term which the Apostle employs in his Epistle
to the Romans: “For of Him and by Him and in Him are all things,” 100
nor yet within that used by the same Apostle with reference to Christ
544 Catharist Literature

in his Epistle to the Colossians, “For in Him were all things created, in
heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or domina¬
tions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and
in Him. And He is before all, and in Him all things consist.” 101 Where¬
fore Christ says of Himself, “I am the light of the world; he that fol-
loweth me walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” 102
So, darkness is not created absolutely and directly by our Lord God and
His Son Jesus Christ but only in an indirect and relative sense,103 which
was shown clearly enough above; albeit, in keeping with our thesis, the
aforesaid texts can be otherwise interpreted, as is seen in some part to
have been done in the foregoing.104
Hence, by using the three senses [of “creation”] discussed above and
the various meanings which are assigned in Holy Scriptures to “all” and
other terms of universality, the texts quoted above can be given their
correct interpretation in accordance with our belief. That is, the Lord
our God created and made all things, namely, heaven and earth, the sea,
and all things which are therein; He made all things in heaven and earth
through our Lord Jesus Christ; and all things were created by Him, in
Him, and of Him, as has already been demonstrated by many texts.

[///. On the Terms of Universality]

[1] A Rebuttal: Good and Evil Are Not Denoted by “All” and Other
Terms of Universality.1—I have resolved to discuss a subject on which
our opponents have often vaunted themselves over us, in that they
frequently seek to confirm their doctrine by those terms of universality
such as “all” (omnia), “all things whatsoever” (<universa), and “all things”
(cuncta), and other terms which in biblical texts denote the total number
of things. They make no distinction at all among substances and insist,
moreover, that all substances whatsoever, the evil as well as the good,
the transitory as well as the permanent, have been made and created
without exception by the just, true, and holy Lord God. With the aid of
the true Father I have determined to rebut their doctrine by the testimony
of the Scriptures and the soundest of arguments.
[2] On the Terms of Universality.—It should, then, be understood that
the terms of universality mentioned above, although they may be so
called by grammarians, cannot be categorically so designated by men
of real wisdom, to wit, that under any term of universality all substances
59. Book of Two Principles (Part 111) 545
and actions whatsoever may be neatly comprehended, and indeed even
all accidents. Whence, it is obvious that, among the learned, these terms
I

are called universals according to the construction placed upon them in

the minds of those using them, but not at all because all things both
good and evil may be absolutely and finally summed up under any
given term of universality. And this is particularly true inasmuch as
good and evil do not harmonize, nor can one come from the other, since
they mutually destroy one another and battle in active and continuous
opposition.
Because of this, one should realize that the aforesaid terms of uni¬
versality are used in scriptural texts with several meanings. Now, there
are some such terms which refer to those things which are good, clean,
made in wisdom, and highly desirable, which persist forever and which
r

obey our Lord God in every use, as is clearly revealed in the Holy
Scriptures. On the other hand, there are other terms of universality,
which designate those things that are evil, vain, and transitory, and
that ought to be cast aside, to be counted but as dung by the faithful of
Jesus Christ,2 that they may gain our Lord Jesus Christ. There are still
other terms of universality, which, as one reads, relate to those who, once
established under the power of the king of Babylon, were to have been
given into the hands of robbers, and were rather to have been laid waste
by “a king of a shameless face.” 3 These terms also, we believe, were
“concluded under [i.e. confined under the power of] sin, that the
promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that be¬
lieve.” 4 They were also confined in unbelief by the true Lord God “that
he may have mercy on all” 5 of them. Now, these terms of universality
represent those who are to be reconciled, restored, renewed, re-estab¬
lished, fulfilled, and quickened by our Lord God, and by His Son Jesus
Christ, as is manifestly dwelt upon by die Scriptures.
[3] On the Terms of Universality Referring to the Good.—I wish to
expound the soundest interpretation of those terms of universality which
*

I characterized above as referring to what is good, clean, made in wis¬

dom, and the like, using the evidence of Holy Scriptures. For the Apostle
says in the first Epistle to Timothy, “For every creature of God is good
and nothing to be rejected.” 6 And Ecclesiastes says, “He hath made all
things good in their time”;7 and again, “I have learned that all the
works which God hath made, continue forever; we cannot add anything,
546 Catharist Literature

nor take away from those things which God hath made that He may
be feared.” 8 And it is written in Ecclesiasticus: “O how desirable are all
His works! All these things live and remain forever, and for every use
all things obey Him.” 9 And David says: “How great are Thy works, O
Lord? Thou hast made all things in wisdom”;10 and again, “By Thy
ordinance the day goeth on, for all things serve thee.” 11 And the Apostle
says to the Romans: “All things indeed are clean”;12 and again, “All
things are clean to the clean”;13 and again, “And we know that to them
that love God all things work together unto good,” 14 and so on.
In this way it is clearly proved by scriptural evidence that the afore¬
said terms of universality designate those things which are most excel¬
lent and clean, and which persist forever. Hence, among wise men, it
seems impossible that the good and the evil, the transitory and the
permanent, can be wholly summed up absolutely and directly under
these terms of universality, as these wise men can very clearly discover.
[4] On the Universal Symbols Which Refer to the Evil.—The dis¬
cussion now turns to the question of those terms of universality which I
characterized above as designating those things which are evil, vain,
transitory, and which are to be cast aside, and so on. For Ecclesiastes
says: “Vanity of vanities and all is vanity”;15 and again, “I have seen
all things that are done under the sun and behold, all is vanity and
vexation of spirit.” 16 And again: “All things have their season and in
their times all things pass under heaven. A time to be bom and a time
to die.” 17 And again: “All things are subject to vanity. And all things
go to one place; of earth they were made and into earth they return
together.” 18 And again, “And therefore I was weary of my life, when I
saw that all things under the sun are evil; and all vanity and vexation
of spirit.” 19 And the Apostle says to the Colossians: “If then you be
dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet
decree as though living in the world? Touch not, taste not, handle not,
which are all unto destruction by the very use.” 20 And to the Philippians
the same Apostle says: “If any other thinketh he may have confidence in
the flesh, I more; being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; according
to the Law, a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecuting the church of
God; according to the justice that is in the Law, conversing without
blame. But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss
for Christ. Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excel-
59. Book of Two Principles (Part III) 547
lent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord, for whom I have suffered the
loss of all things and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ.”21
And in the Gospel of the Blessed Matthew, Christ says to the scribe, “If
thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast”;22 that is, put away all
your material possessions in accordance with the Law. Thence there
follows: “Then Peter answering, said to him: ‘Behold, we have left all
things and have followed Thee; what therefore shall we have?’ ”22 In
answer, He said, “You have left all things and followed me,”24 and so
forth. And the Apostle says to the Colossians, “But now put you also all
away: anger, detraction, indignation, malice, blasphemy.”25 And the
Blessed John says in his first Epistle: “Love not the world nor the
9

things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of
the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is the concupiscence
of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, which
is not of the Father but is of the world,” 26 and so on.
Thus, it should be clearly realized that these universal symbols which
refer to what is evil, vain, and transitory are not of the same sort as those
other universal symbols already mentioned, which designate the good,
clean, and highly desirable, and which persist forever. And this is
particularly true because they cannot be in harmony nor exist together
under any form of universality, because they mutually destroy and oppose
one another. Nor is it possible that they can derive entirely from the
same cause.
[5] On Those Terms of Universality Designating Those Who for
Their Sins Were Established in the Power of the King of Babylon.—I
now propose to clarify the matter of those terms of universality which
were once established under the power of the king of Babylon, which
were to have been given into the hands of robbers, and were rather to
have been laid waste by “a king of a shameless face.” 27 These terms,
also, we believe, apply to all that are to be reconciled, re-established,
fulfilled, and quickened by the true Lord God and by His Son Jesus
Christ, as is clearly set forth in the Scriptures.28 For the prophet Daniel
says to Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king: “Thou art a king of kings,
and the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, and strength, and
power, and glory, and all places wherein the children of men and the
beasts of the field do dwell; He hath also given the birds of the air into
thy hand and hath put all things under thy power.” 29 And again: “And
after their reign, when iniquities shall be grown up, there shall arise a
548 Catharist Literature
«

king of a shameless face and understanding dark sentences. And his

power shall be strengthened but not by his own force, and he shall lay
all things waste and shall prosper and do more than can be believed.
And he shall destroy the mighty, and the people of the saints, according
. — «

to his will. And craft shall be successful in his hand, and his heart shall
be puffed up. And in the abundance of all things he shall kill many; and
he shall rise up against the prince of princes.”80 And Job says, “The
tabernacles of robbers abound, and they provoke God boldly, whereas
it is he that hath given all into their hands.” 31 All this you must interpret
as caused by the sins of the people, as the already quoted Daniel, re¬
ferring to the “little horn,” 82 says, “And strength was given him against
the continual sacrifice, because of sins; and truth shall be cast down on
the ground.”83 And Elihu in the Book of Job says, “And upon nations
and over all men He maketh a man that is a hypocrite to reign for the
sins of the people.” 84 And it was in this way that those who are repre¬
sented by the aforesaid terms of universality, because of their sins, were
once, we believe, put under the power of sin and also of unbelief, given
into the hands of jobbers, and established under the power of the king
of Babylon, so that in the last times God may have mercy on all of
those who forsake their wickedness. For the Apostle says to the Gala¬
tians, “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise
by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given unto them that believe.” 35
And the same Apostle says to the Romans, “For God hath concluded all
in unbelief, that He may have mercy on us all.” 86
[6] On the Mercy of the Lord Our God.—So the Lord our God “for
His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us” 37 has had mercy upon us,
as the Apostle writes to the Ephesians: “Even when we were dead in
sins, [God] hath quickeneth us together in Christ”;88 and as the same
Apostle says to Titus: “Not by the works which we have done but
according to His great mercy He saved us, by the laver of regeneration
and renovation of the Holy Spirit, whom He hath poured forth upon us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that, being justified by His
grace, we may be heirs according to hope of life everlasting.” 89 Whence
it is written in the Book of Wisdom: “But Thou, our God, art gracious
and true, patient, and ordering all things in mercy.”40 And again: “But
Thou hast mercy upon all because Thou canst do all things and over-
lookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance. For Thou lovest all
things that are and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made, for
59. Book of Two Principles (Part III) 549

Thou didst not appoint or make anything hating it. And how could
anything endure if Thou wouldst not? or be preserved if not called by
Thee? But Thou sparest all because they are Thine, O Lord, who lovest
souls.”41 And again: “For it was neither herb nor mollifying plaster
that healed them, but Thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things.”42
And David says: “All expect of Thee that Thou give them food in
season. What Thou givest to them they shall gather up, when Thou
openest Thy hand they shall all be fulfilled with good.”42 And Christ
says in the Gospel of John, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all things to myself.”44 Thus, it is clearly discovered through
statements of the Scripture that God wishes to have mercy upon all
His creatures.
[7] On the Reconciliation of Those Represented by Terms of Uni¬
versality.—It can be clearly found through evidence of Scripture that
those to whom the aforesaid terms of universality refer are to be recon¬
ciled, restored, re-established, fulfilled, and quickened45 by the Lord
our God and by His Son Jesus Christ. For the Apostle says of our Lord
Jesus Christ in his Epistle to the Colossians: “Because in Him it hath
well pleased the Father that all fullness of divinity should dwell, and
through Him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through
the blood of His cross, both as to the things that are on earth and the
things that are in heaven.” 44 And in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ
says, “Elijah indeed shall come and restore all things.”47 And the
Apostle says to the Ephesians: “That He might make known unto us the
mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath
purposed in Him in the dispensation of the fullness of times, to re¬
establish all things in Christ that are in heaven and on earth in Him.”48
And it is written in the Apocalypse, “And He that sat on the throne,
said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ ”48 And it is of Christ, we believe,
that the Apostle says to the Ephesians, “He that descended is the same
also that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.”88
And in his first Epistle to Timothy, the same Apostle says, “I charge
thee before God, who quickeneth all things.” 51 It is revealed, moreover,52
that what is represented by the term “all” has been subjected under the
feet of Jesus Christ by the true Lord God, as David says and the Apostle
points out to the Hebrews: “ ‘He has subjected all things under His feet.’
For in that He hath subjected all things to Him, He left nothing not
subject to Him. But now we see not as yet all things subject to Him.” 58
550 Catharist Literature

And again, the same Apostle says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians:
“ ‘For He hath put all things under His feet.’ And whereas he saith, ‘All
things are put under Him’; undoubtedly, He is excepted who put all
things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then
the Son also himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under
Him, that God may be all in all.” 54
[8] That All Good and Evil Whatsoever Come Not from One and the
Same Cause.—To wise men, therefore, it is obvious that the good and
the evil, the clean and the polluted, the transitory and the permanent,
are not summed ud up under these terms of universalitv.
universality, to wit.
wit, “all.”
“all,” “all
things whatsoever,” and “all things,” and others which are found in Holy
Scriptures, most particularly because they are complete opposites and
contraries. Nor could they all arise entirely from one cause alone. For
Jesus son of Sirach says: “Good is set against evil, and life against death,
so also is the sinner against a just man. And so look upon all the works of
the Most High.” 55 And Paul says in the second Epistle to the Corinthians:
“For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship
hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement
hath the temple of God with idols?” 58 It is as if he were saying: Justice
has absolutely no harmony with injustice, nor light with darkness, nor
is there concord between Christ and Belial; which should be understood
to mean that these opposites and contraries may not arise from one and
the same cause. If it were otherwise—if justice and injustice, light and
darkness, Christ and Belial, the faithful and the unbeliever, came ab¬
solutely and directly from the Highest Cause of all good—they would
be in partnership and in concord, and would not destroy one another in
the way that good and evil obviously do every day. For it was clearly
pointed out above that, “Good is set against evil, and life against death,” 57
and so on.
Hence, it follows that there is another principle, one of evil, who is
the source and cause of all wickedness, foulness, and unbelief, as also
of all darkness. For otherwise, the true God himself, who is most faith¬
ful, and the height of justice, the essence of purity, would be entirely the
cause and origin of all evil. AH opposites and contraries would emanate
entirely from the Lord himself. To suppose this is a most foolish
fancy.
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 551
[IV, A Compend for the Instruction of Beginners]
[1] On the Creation of Heaven, the Earth, and the Sea.—I have
resolved, further, to treat in brief form for the instruction of beginners1
the subject of the creation of heaven, the earth, and the sea, of which
something has already been said.2 Now, I say that sometimes in the
Holy Scriptures the terms “heavens” and “earth” refer not to the permu-
table and unreasoning elements of this world only, but to intelligent
creatures of the true God, those which have comprehension and under¬
standing.8 For David says: “The heavens show forth the glory of God,
and the firmament declareth the work of his hands.” 4 And again, “Hear,
O ye heavens, the things I speak; let the earth give ear to the words of
my mouth.”5 And Isaiah says, “Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O
earth, for the Lord hath spoken.” 6 And Jeremiah 7 says: “O earth,
earth, hear the word of the Lord.” And David, “Thy way is in the sea
and Thy paths in many waters.” 8 It is to these paths, I believe, that
David also refers in the passage “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and
truth.” •
Thus, by the terms “heaven,” “earth,” and “sea” a spiritual existence
is implied, as the Blessed John says in the Apocalypse: “And every
creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and
such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard all saying, ‘To
Him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb, benediction and honor
and glory and power, forever and ever.’ ” 10 Thus, David says: “I be-
*

lieve to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living”;11 and
again, “Thy good spirit shall lead me into the right land.” 12 And David 13
says, “But the just shall inherit the land and shall dwell therein forever¬
more.” And Christ commanded “not to swear by heaven, for it is the
throne of God,” of which, indeed, David says, “Thy throne, O God, is
forever and ever” 14—“nor by earth, for it is His footstool,” 15 the Lord
added. It is of this footstool that David is believed to have written, “Fear
ye the Lord our God, and adore His footstool, for it is holy.” 16
I grant that the Lord our God is the creator and maker of this creation,
but not of the “weak and needy elements” of this world, to which the
Apostle, for example, refers in saying to the Galatians, “How turn you
again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again?” 17
And to the Colossians the same Apostle says: “If then you be dead with
552 Catharist Literature

Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though
living in the world? Touch not, taste not, handle not, which are all unto
destruction by the very use.” 18 Therefore, it can by no means be con¬
ceded that the Lord our God is creator or maker of death, or of those
things which are wholly in death, as is written in the Book of Wisdom,
“For God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of
the living.” 18 So undoubtedly there is another creator or maker, who is
the source and cause of death and perdition, as of all evil, just as we
pointed out with sufficient clarity above.
[2] On the Omnipotence of the True Lord God.—Now it is my in¬
tention to discuss the omnipotence of the true Lord God, a subject on
which our opponents have often vaunted themselves over us, saying
that there is no power or potency other than His.
Although the true Lord God may be called almighty by the testimony
of Holy Scriptures, it is, however, not to be believed that He ought to
be called omnipotent in the sense that He can and does do all evils,
since there are many evil things which the true God cannot and never
will be able to do. For the Apostle says to the Hebrews, “It is impos¬
sible for God to lie.” 20 And in the second Epistle to Timothy, the same
Apostle says, “If we believe not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny
himself.” 21 Nor should one believe that the good God can utterly
destroy himself or, contrary to all reason and justice, do absolutely all
evil things, this especially because He is not the absolute cause of that

But our opponents may rejoin: On the contrary, we can indeed assert
that the true Lord God is almighty, in that He can and does do all
good things, and also in that He can do all evil things; he can even lie
and destroy Himself if He wishes, but He does not choose to do so.
[3] That God Cannot Be the Author of Evil. The reply is obvious.
For if God does not desire all evil things, nor to lie, nor to destroy
Himself, there is no doubt that He cannot do so, because that which
God most certainly does not desire He cannot do, and what He abso¬
lutely cannot do He does not desire. From this it is clear that in the
true Lord God there exists no potency for sinning or for doing all evil
things. The argument for this is as follows: Since anything predicated of
God is indeed God himself, especially because, in the view of wise men,
He is not composite nor are there in Him any accidents; it thus follows
that God himself and His will are one and the same thing.22 Therefore,
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 553
the good God cannot lie or be the author of all evils unless He so
desires, because what He himself does not desire the true God cannot
do, for He and His will are one and the same, as was said above.
[4] That God Cannot Make Another God.—Now, with reason and
without fear I can say further that the true God himself, with all His
powers, could not, cannot, and never will be able in any manner, either
intentionally or unintentionally, to make another god and lord and
creator, like and coequal unto himself in all things. This I prove.
I say, indeed, that it is impossible for the good God to make another
god like unto himself in all things, that is to say, eternal and ever¬
lasting, creator and maker of all things that are good, with neither
beginning nor end, one who was never made, created, or born of anyone
in the sense that the good God was not made, created, or born of any¬
one. Yet in Holy Scriptures the true Lord God is not called impotent,
because of this. Hence it must firmly be believed that the reason the
good God is called omnipotent is not that He can make, has made, or
shall make all the evils which are, were, and shall be made hereafter,
but because He is omnipotent over all things which were, are, and shall
be good; and this particularly because He is wholly the cause and origin
of all good, but is in no way, of himself exclusively and essentially, the
cause of any evil. It follows, therefore, that among wise men the true
God is called omnipotent in respect of all things that He has done, does,
and shall do in the future; but among those who understand correctly
He is not called omnipotent in the sense that He can do what He has not
done, does not do, and never will do. And if our opponents say that He
has no desire to do so, the argument carries no weight against me, be¬
cause He and His will are one and the same, as was demonstrated above.
[5] That God Is Not Mighty in Evil, but That There Is Another and
Evil Potency.—Therefore, it is firmly to be believed that because there
exists in God no potency for evil by which He might bring evil things
into existence, there is another principle, one of evil, who is potent in
evil. From that one flow all evils which were, are, and shall be.23 It is
evidently of him that David says: “Why doest thou glory in malice, thou
that art mighty in iniquity? All the day long thy tongue hath devised
injustice; as a sharp razor thou hast wrought deceit. Thou hast loved
malice more than goodness, and iniquity rather than to speak righteous¬
ness.”34 And the Blessed John says in the Apocalypse, “And that great
dragon was cast out, that old serpent who is called the devil and Satan,
554 Catharist Literature

who seduceth the whole world.” 25 And Christ says in the Gospel of
Luke: “The seed is the word of God. And they by the wayside are they
that hear; then the devil cometh and taketh the word out of their heart,
lest believing they should be saved.” 26 And the prophet Daniel says:
“I beheld, and lo, that horn made war against the saints and prevailed
over them, till the Ancient of Days came and gave judgment to the
saints of the Most High,” 27 and so on. And again: “And another shall
rise up after them; and he shall be mightier than the former, and he shall
bring down three kings. And he shall speak words against the High One,
and shall crush the saints of the Most High, and he shall think himself
able to change times and laws.” 28 And again: “And it [the little horn]
became great against the south, and against the east, and against the
strength. And it was magnified even unto the strength of heaven; and it
threw down of the strength, and of the stars, and trod upon them. And it
was magnified even to the prince of the strength; and it took away from
him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary.” 20
And the Blessed John says in the Apocalypse: “And there was seen
another sign in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven
heads, and ten horns, and on his head seven diadems, and his tail drew
the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth.” 30 And
“And power was given to him to do two and forty months; and
he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme
his name and his tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven. And it was
given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” 31
So, in the view of wise men, it is deemed wholly impossible that from
the true Lord God derive absolutely and directly this mighty one and
his potency or power, he who daily works in the most evil fashion against
God and His creation, against whom the Lord our God seeks mightily
to contend. This the true God could not do if that one, in all his char¬
acteristics, were entirely from Him, as most of our opponents declare.
[6] On the Destruction of the One Mighty in Iniquity.—It is most
clearly found in the Holy Scriptures, moreover, that the true Lord God
is about to destroy, together with all his powers,82 this mighty one who
daily strives against God and His creation. For David says of him who
is mighty in iniquity: “Therefore will God destroy thee forever; he will
pluck thee out and remove thee from thy dwelling place, and thy root
out of the land of the living.” 83 And David, invoking his God against
this mighty one, as we believe, says: “Break thou the arm of the sinner
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 555
and of the malignant; his sin shall be sought and shall not be found. The
Lord shall reign to eternity, yea, forever and ever.” 34 And again, “For
yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; and thou shalt seek his
place and shalt not find it.” 33 And in the Proverbs of Solomon is
written, “The wicked man shall be driven out in his wickedness.” 36 And
the Apostle, referring to the destruction of this mighty one by the coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ, says in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “That,
through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is
to say, the devil.” 37 And so, the Lord our God not only seeks to destroy
this mighty one but also all the powers and dominations which sometimes
seem through this mighty one to rule over the creatures of the good Lord
«

when they are subjected to this evil dominion. So speaks the Blessed
Virgin Mary in the Gospel according to Luke, “He hath put down the
mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.” 38 And the Apostle
says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, “Afterward the end, when
he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when
he shall have brought to nought all principality, and power, and virtue,
and domination and the enemy of all, death, shall be destroyed last.” 39
And the same Apostle says to the Colossians: “Giving thanks to God
the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the
saints in light of truth, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness
and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.” 40 And
again: “And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircum¬
cision of your flesh, He hath quickened together with Him, forgiving you
all offenses, blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against
us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the
way, fastening it to the Cross; and despoiling the principalities and
powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing
over them in himself.” 41 Thus the Blessed Paul was sent by the Lord
Jesus Christ to despoil the power referred to, as is written of him in the
Acts of the Apostles: “For to this end have I appeared to thee, that I
may make thee a minister and a witness of those things which thou hast
seen and of those things wherein I will appear to thee, delivering thee
from the people and from the nations, unto which now I send thee, to
open their eyes that they may be converted from darkness to light and
from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of
sins and a lot among the saints by the faith that is in me.” 42 And Christ,
in the Gospel of the Blessed Matthew, says: “You are come out as it were
556 Catharist Literature

to a robber, with swords and clubs to apprehend me. I sat daily with
you, teaching in the temple, and you laid not hands on me.43 But this is
your hour, and the power of darkness.” 44 Whence one must firmly be¬
lieve that the power of Satan and of darkness cannot be absolutely and
directly from the true Lord God. Otherwise, if, as the unlearned say, the
power of Satan and of darkness in all its manifestations were absolutely
and directly from the true Lord God, along with other powers, and all
virtues and dominations, Paul and the other faithful of Jesus Christ could
in no way have been snatched from the power of darkness. And also
there would have been no way by which anyone could have been con¬
verted from the power of Satan to the true Lord God. This is particu¬
larly true because, if all powers, virtues, and dominations were derived
exclusively and essentially from the good God, anyone who is extricated
from the power of Satan and of darkness would be released from the
exclusive and essential power of the true Lord God himself. Nor could
the Lord himself despoil and bring to nought any power other than His
own, if no other power whatsoever is to be found, as say all the opponents
of those true Christians who are rightly known by the name of Alba-
nenses.45
[7] On the Evil Principle.—For this reason, in the opinion of the
wise it is firmly to be believed that there is another principle, one of
evil, who is mighty in iniquity, from whom the power of Satan and of
darkness and all other powers which are inimical to the true Lord God
are exclusively and essentially derived, as was demonstrated above and
will appear below, God willing. Otherwise, it would seem obvious to
these same [wise] persons that this Divine Might struggles, destroys, and
wars against itself. For the Apostle says to the Ephesians: “Finally,
brethren, be strengthened in the Lord and in the might of His power. Put
you on the armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the
deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this
darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore
take unto you the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the
evil day, and to stand in all things perfect,”46 and so on; “in all things
taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all
the fiery darts of the most wicked one.” 47 Thus, the virtues and the
powers of the true Lord God by His will would daily be in opposition to
one another, were there no other might but His. It is utter foolishness to
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 557
believe this of the true God. Therefore, it follows indubitably that there
is a might or power other than the true one, which the true Lord God
daily seeks to assail, as was most clearly demonstrated to the wise48 in
the foregoing.
[8] On the Strange God and Many Gods.—Now, if anyone should be
so foolish as to spurn the most valid arguments set forth above, let him
fully realize that through the evidence of the Holy Scriptures it may
clearly be learned that there is another god, a lord and prince other than
the true Lord God. For the Lord says through Jeremiah,4* “As you have
forsaken me and served a strange god in your own land, so shall you
serve strange gods in a land that is not your own.” And [through Isaiah],
“Assemble yourselves and come, and draw near together, ye that are
saved of the Gentiles! They have no knowledge that set up the wood of
their graven work, and pray to a god that cannot save.”80 And again,
“O Lord our God, other lords besides thee have had dominion over us,
only in Thee let us remember Thy name.” 81 And David says: “Hear, O
my people, and I will testify to thee! O Israel, if thou wilt hearken to
me! there shall be no new god in thee; neither shalt thou adore a strange
god.’’52 And again, “If we have forgotten the name of our God, and if
we have spread forth our hands to a strange god, shall not God search
out these things?”88 And again: “The princes of the people are gathered
together with the God of Abraham; for the strong gods of the earth are
exceedingly exalted.”84 And again, “For all the gods of the Gentiles are
devils.”88 And Zephaniah says, “The Lord shall be terrible upon them
and shall consume all the gods of the earth.”88 And Jeremiah says: “A
conspiracy is found among the men of Judah and among the inhabitants
of Jerusalem so these likewise have gone after strange gods, to serve them
and adore them.”87 And again: “Because your fathers forsook me and
went after strange gods and served them and adored them, and they
forsook me and kept not my law; and you also have done worse than
your fathers, for behold, every one of you walketh after the perverseness
of his evil heart, so as not to hearken to me. So I will cast you forth out
of this land into a land which you know not, nor your fathers; and there
you shall serve strange gods day and night, which shall not give you any
rest.”88 And Malachi says: “Judah hath transgressed, and abomination
hath been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah hath pro¬
faned the holiness of the Lord, which He loved, and hath married the
daughter of a strange god.”88 And Micah says: “For all people will
558 Catharist Literature

walk away every one in the name of his god, but we will walk in the
name of the Lord our God forever and ever.” 60 And the Apostle says in
the second Epistle to the Corinthians: “And if our gospel be also hid,
it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath
blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.” 61
And the same Apostle says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: “For
although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for
there be gods many, and lords many), yet to us there is but one God.” 02
And Christ says in the Gospel of Matthew: “No man can serve two
masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will
sustain the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and
mammon.” 63 And again, in the Gospel of John, Christ says: “For the
prince of this world cometh and in me he hath not anything”;64 and
again, “Now is the judgment of the world, now shall the prince of this
world be cast out”;65 and again, “Because the prince of this world is
already judged.” 66 And the apostles say in their Acts: “ ‘Why did the
Gentiles rage, and the people meditate vain things? The kings of the
earth stood up, and the princes assembled together against the Lord and
his Christ.’ For of a truth there assembled together in this city against
Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, Herod, and Pontius
Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel,” 67 and so on. So it is
clearly seen that through the evidence of the Holy Scriptures many gods,
lords, and princes in enmity to the true Lord God and His son Jesus
Christ can manifestly be discovered, as has just been plainly set forth.
[9] That an Evil Eternity May Also Be Discerned.—That for these
gods an eternity, a sempiternity, and an antiquity may be discerned
different and distinct from that of the true Lord God we can clearly
prove through the Scriptures. Christ says in the Gospel of Matthew,
“Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his left hand, ‘Depart
from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the
devil and his angels.’ ” 68 And the Blessed Jude [brother of] James: “And
the angels who kept not their principality but forsook their own habita¬
tion He hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains unto the
judgment of the great day”; 69 and again, “As Sodom and Gomorrah
and the neighboring cities in like manner, having given themselves to
fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering
the punishment of eternal fire.” 70 And the Blessed Job says, “Where
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 559
the shadow of death, and no order, but everlasting horror dwelleth.” 71
And through Ezechiel, the Lord says of Mount Seir: “I will make thee
everlasting desolations”;72 and again, “Behold, I come against thee,
Mount Seir, and I will stretch forth my hand upon thee, and I will make
thee desolate and waste. I will destroy thy cities, and thou shalt be
desolate; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. Because thou hast
been an everlasting enemy, and hast shut up the children of Israel in
the hands of the sword in the time of their affliction, in the time of their
last iniquity.”73 This [Mount Seir] is a symbol for the devil, who is the
enemy of the true God, as Christ pointed out in the Gospel of Mat¬
thew.74 And the Apostle says in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians,
“Who also shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction.” 75 And Christ
says in the Gospel of Matthew, “And these shall go into everlasting
punishment.” 76 And in the Gospel of the Blessed Mark, He says, “But
he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit shall never have for¬
giveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.” 77
Habakkuk the prophet, referring to the eternity of the devil, says:
“God will come from the south, and the holy one from Mount Pharan.
His glory covered the heavens, and the earth is full of his praise. His
brightness shall be as the light, horns are in his hands; there is his
strength hid. Death shall go before his face, and the devil shall go forth
before his feet. He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and melted
the nations; and the ancient mountains were crushed to pieces. The
hills of the world were bowed down by the journeys of his eternity.” 78
Moreover, regarding the antiquity of the devil it is written in the Apoc¬
alypse, “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is
called the devil and Satan.” 79 Whence, if it be fully understood that the
essences of things have neither beginning nor end by reason of their
eternity, sempiternity, or antiquity (just as, for example, it is evident
to anyone is true in the case of the good God), it has, then, been clearly
demonstrated in the foregoing that sin, penalties, desolations,80 error,
fire, punishment, chains, and the devil have neither beginning nor end.
They are the names either of the chief principle of evil or of his effects.81
They are evidences of one evil cause, eternal or everlasting or ancient,
because if the effect has been eternal or everlasting, it necessarily fol¬
lows that the cause was the same. There is, then, without doubt, a
principle of evil from which this eternity or sempiternity and antiquity
are exclusively and essentially derived.
560 Catharist Literature

[10] That There Is Another Creator or Maker.—That there is, in

addition to the faithful Creator to whom they that suffer “commended
their souls in good deeds,” 82 another god and lord who is a creator and
maker, I propose to prove clearly from the Scriptures, chiefly from the
Old Testament, in accord with the trust which our opponents place in
it.83 For they openly assert the Lord to be the creator and maker who
created and made the visible things of this world, namely heaven and
earth, the sea, men and beasts, birds and all creeping things, as we read
in Genesis: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the
earth was void and empty.” 84 And again: “And God created the great
whales, and every living and moving creature and every winged fowl
according to its kind.” 85 And again, “And God made the beasts of the
earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and everything that creepeth
after its kind.” 86 And again, “And God created man to His own image;
to the image of God he created him; male and female he made them.” 87
And Christ says in the Gospel of the Blessed Mark, “But from the
beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.”88
Now it must be kept in mind that no one can point to the temporal and
visible existence of the evil god in this world, nor, indeed, to that of the
good God. But a cause is known by its effects. From this, it should be
understood that no one can prove him to be an evil god or a creator,
except by the fact of his evil works or his fickle words. But I say that
he who created and made the visible things of this world is not the true
Creator. This I intend to prove by the fact of his evil works and his
fickle words, assuming to be true what our opponents most openly
affirm, that the works and words which are recorded in the Old
Testament were actually produced, visibly and materially, in this world.8*
For heartily we detest these works, namely adultery, theft of another’s
property, murder, blasphemy, concurring in falsehood, giving one’s word
either with or without an oath and never keeping it. All these evil things
enumerated were done by the god or creator discussed above, visibly
and materially, in this temporal world, according to that interpretation
which our opponents put on the Old Testament. They believe that these
scriptures speak of the creation and production of this world and of
the works which are openly and actually seen on this earth. This also
those persons who believe there is only one First Principle are of neces¬
sity forced to admit. These things I propose clearly to prove by those
scriptures to which our opponents give great credence.
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 561
[11] That the Evil God Brought About Fornication.—Now, this lord
and creator commanded in Deuteronomy: “If a man shall lie with another
man’s wife, they shall both die, that is to say, the adulterer and the
adulteress, and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel”;90 and again,
“No man shall take [his] father’s wife nor remove his covering.” 91 And
in Leviticus, the Lord again says: “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness
of thy father’s wife, for it is the nakedness of thy father”;92 and again,
“If a man lie with his stepmother and discover the nakedness of his
father, let them both be put to death.”93
But contrary to the above-mentioned precept, it is obvious that this
lord and creator caused this adultery to be committed openly and
carnally in this temporal world, according to the belief and the interpre¬
tation of our opponents, as will be found most clearly expressed in the
second Book of Kings, read according to their belief, for there this
lord and creator says to David through the prophet Nathan: “Why
therefore has thou despised the word of the Lord, to do evil in my sight?
Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his
wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children
of Ammon. Therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house,
because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the
Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil
against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy
eyes and give them to thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in
the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing
in the sight of all Israel.’ ”94 Thus, according to the belief of our op¬
ponents, either this lord and creator was a liar, or without doubt he
actually brought about this adultery, as he is clearly found to have done,
according to their interpretation, in the second Book of Kings: “And
Ahithophel said to Absalom: ‘Go in to the concubines of thy father,
whom he hath left to keep the house; that when all Israel shall hear that
thou hast disgraced thy father their hands may be strengthened with
thee.’ So they spread a tent for Absalom on the top of the house; and he
went into his father’s concubines before all Israel.”93 So, as he had
threatened, this lord and creator, according to our opponents’ inter¬
pretation, consummated that deed of adultery temporally and visibly in
this world, and also contrary to his own commandment as cited above,
“If a man shall lie with another man’s wife,”94 and so on.
No wise man, therefore, assumes that the true Creator was he who ac-
562 Catharist Literature

tually gave a man’s wives to his son or to any other man for purposes of
fornication, as that creator who, according to the belief of the ignorant
made the visible things of this world is believed to have done, as is
clearly shown in the foregoing. Wherefore it should be realized that the
Lord our God, the true Creator, never decreed that adultery or fornica¬
tion should actually be committed in this world. For the Apostle says, in
his first Epistle to the Corinthians, “Do not err; neither fornicators nor
adulterers shall possess the kingdom of God.” 07 And the same Apostle
says to the Ephesians, “For know you this and understand, that no
fornicator or unclean person hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ
and of God.” 98 And he says to the Thessalonians, “For this is the will
of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from fornication.” 99
Our true Creator, therefore, did not in this temporal world take the
wives of David, nor give them to his neighbor to lie with in the sight of
all Israel and in the sight of the sun, as was set forth above. But there
is, without doubt, an evil creator, who is the source and cause of all the
fornication and adultery of this world, as has been proven above and
will appear below, God willing.
[12] That the Evil God Caused the Goods of Others to Be Plundered
by Force, and Murder to be Committed.—We can, moreover, clearly
prove through the Old Testament, if we accept the belief of our oppo¬
nents, that the aforesaid lord and creator caused the goods of others to
be plundered by force and caused the actual theft—under the guise of a
loan—of the wealth of the Egyptians and even caused most bloody
murders. For this very lord says to Moses in Exodus: “Therefore thou
shalt tell all the people that every man ask of his friend, and every
woman of her neighbor, vessels of silver, and of gold. And the Lord will
give favor to his people in the sight of the Egyptians.” 100 And again:
“And the children of Israel did as Moses had commanded; and they
asked of the Egyptians vessels of silver and gold, and very much raiment;
and the Lord gave favor to the people in the sight of the Egyptians, so
that they lent unto them; and they stripped the Egyptians.” 101 And in
Deuteronomy, Moses says to the people: “If at any time thou come to
fight against a city, thou shalt first offer it peace. If they receive it and
open the gates to thee, all the people that are therein shall be saved and
K

shall serve thee paying tribute. But if they will not make peace, and shall
begin war against thee, thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy
God shall deliver it into thy hands, thou shalt slay all that are therein
of the male sex, with the edge of the sword, excepting women and
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 563
children, cattle, and other things that are in the city. And thou shalt
divide all the prey to the army; and thou shalt eat the spoils of thy
enemies, which the Lord thy God shall give thee. So shalt thou do to all
cities that are at great distance from thee and are not of these cities
which thou shalt receive in possession. But of those cities that shall be
given thee, thou shalt suffer none at all to live, but shalt kill them with the
edge of the sword, to wit, the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Cana-
anite, the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Hivite as the Lord thy God
hath commanded thee.” 102 And again in the same book: “And Sihon
came out to meet us with all his people to fight at Jahaz. And the Lord
our God delivered him to us; and we slew him with his sons and all his
people. And we took all his cities at that time, killing the inhabitants of
them, men and women and children; we left nothing of them.” 103 And
again: “So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king
of Bashan, and all his people; and we utterly destroyed them, wasting
all his cities at one time. There was not a town that escaped us;
sixty cities, all the country of Argob the kingdom of Og in Bashan,”
and so on. “And we utterly destroyed them, as we had done to Sihon
the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men and women and
children. But the cattle and the spoils of the cities we took for our
prey.”104
Regarding the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath it is written in the
Book of Numbers: “And it came to pass, when the children of Israel
were in the wilderness and had found a man gathering sticks on the
Sabbath day, that they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole
multitude. And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should
do with him. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Let that man die; let all
the multitude stone him without the camp.’ ”105 And again this lord
says in Exodus to the people of Israel: “I will fill the number of thy days.
I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom
thou shalt come, and will turn the backs of all thy enemies.” 106 And in
Leviticus the same lord says: “You shall pursue your enemies, and they
shall fall before you. Five of yours shall pursue a hundred others, and
a hundred of you ten thousand; your enemies shall fall before you by
the sword.” 107 And he says in the Book of Numbers: “But if you will
not kill the inhabitants of the land, they that remain shall be as nails in
your eyes and spears in your sides, and they shall be your adversaries in
the land of your habitation. And whatsoever I had thought to do to
them, I will do to you.” 108
564 Catharist Literature
[13] On the Evil Creator.—And so, in the opinion of the wise it is
quite evident that he cannot be a true creator who, in the temporal world,
caused the manifest and merciless destruction of so many men and women
with all their children. For it does seem incredible that in the case of the
children—since they had not the knowledge rightly to distinguish good
from evil, nor the free will, according to the belief of our opponents—the
true Creator could in this temporal world have destroyed them pitilessly
by a most revolting death; especially when the Lord had said through
Ezechiel, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, but the
soul that sinneth, the same shall die.” 109 Nor does Jesus Christ, faithful
Son of our Creator, enjoin his followers to visit utter destruction upon
their enemies in this temporal world, but commands rather that they do
good unto them. Thus, He says in the Gospel of the Blessed Matthew:
“You have heard that it hath been said to them of old, ‘Thou shalt love
thy neighbor and hate thy enemy.’ But I say to you, ‘Love your ene¬
mies.’ ”119 He did not say: In this temporal world, persecute your
enemies as your Father did of old; but said, “Love your enemies; do
good to them that hate you; and pray for them that persecute and
calumniate you, that you may be the children of your Father who is in
heaven.” 111 It is as though He were saying: that you may be in the
love of your Father who is in heaven, to whom belongs this work of
mercy. Hence, the Son of God, Jesus Christ himself, was taught by His
Father to do this work of mercy in the present, just as He says of himself
in the Gospel of John, “The Son cannot do anything of himself, but
what he seeth his Father doing; for what things soever he doth, these
the Son also doth in like manner.” 112 Therefore, it is evident that the
Father of Jesus Christ did not cause the manifest destruction of so many
men and women with all their children in this temporal world; particu¬
larly since this very God is the “Father of mercies, and the God of all
comfort,”119 as the Apostle points out to the Corinthians.
[14] That the Evil God Cursed Christ.—Moreover, not only did the
lord and creator whom we are discussing command that the aforesaid
murder be committed in this temporal world, if we accept the belief of
our opponents, but he cursed our Lord Jesus Christ, as is recorded in
Deuteronomy: “When a man hath committed a crime and is to be pun¬
ished with death and, being condemned to die, is hanged on a gibbet,
his body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buried the same
day, for he is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree.” 114 And the
59. Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 565
Apostle says to the Galatians; “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the Law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is every¬
one that hangeth on a tree.’ ” 115 Whence, in the opinion of the wise, it
is not at all to be believed that the Most Benevolent God, entirely of
himself and not at all under the influence of His enemy, cursed His son
Jesus Christ—or, rather, cursed himself, if it is true that the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, as the uninformed say.
But there is indubitably an evil creator, who is the source and cause of
the malediction on Jesus Christ as, indeed, he is of all evil.
[15] How That [Evil] God Concurred in Falsehood.—Now, according
to our opponents, the same lord and creator is found to have concurred
in falsehood by sending a very evil and lying spirit. Indeed, the spirit of
this god is called an “evil spirit” and a “wicked spirit,” as is recorded in
the first Book of Kings: “But the spirit of the Lord departed from
Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him”;116 and again, in
the same book, “So whensoever the evil spirit of God was upon Saul,
David took his harp and played with his hand, and Saul was refreshed
and was better, for the evil spirit departed from him.” 1,7 And in the
Book of Judges it is written: “So Abimelech reigned over Israel for
three years. And the Lord God sent a very evil spirit between Abimelech
and the inhabitants of Shechem.”118 But the Lord our God sent die
spirit of truth, as Christ declares in the Gospel.119
And in the third Book of Kings,120 Micaiah the prophet says: “I saw
the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the army of heaven standing by
him on the right hand and on the left. And the Lord said, ‘Who shall
deceive Ahab, king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?’
And one spoke words of this manner, and another otherwise. And there
came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will deceive
him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will
go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the
Lord said, ‘Thou shalt deceive him, and shalt prevail; go forth and do
so.’ Now therefore behold the Lord hath given a lying spirit in the
mouth of all thy prophets that are here; and the Lord hath spoken evil
against thee.” And so, once more it is clearly seen, if we follow our
opponents, that he, lord and creator, sent a very evil and a lying spirit.
This the true God absolutely could not do in any fashion.
[16] That the Evil God Did Not Keep His Promise.—This very lord
and creator, moreover, promised to Abraham, and confirmed to his
566 Catharist Literature

seed, that he would give to him and to his seed after him all the land
which Abraham saw to the north and to the south, to the east and to
the west, as one reads in Genesis: “And the Lord said to Abraham, after
Lot was separated from him, ‘Lift up thy eyes, and look from the place
wherein thou now art, to the north and to the south, to the east and to
the west. All the land which thou seest I will give to thee and to thy seed
forever.’ ” 121 And again: “Arise, walk hrough the land in the length, and
in the breadth thereof, for I will give it to thee.” 122 And in Deuteronomy
it is written: “Go in and possess the land concerning which the Lord
God swore to our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that he would
give it to them and to their seed after them.” 123
But although this very lord made the promise aforesaid under oath
to Abraham, yet it must be believed that in a temporal sense he never
fulfilled it at all. This is what the Blessed Stephen says in the Acts of the
Apostles: “For he, the Lord, said to Abraham, ‘Go forth out of thy
country and from thy kindred and come into the land which I shall
show thee.’ Then he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in
Charan. And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him
into this land wherein you now dwell. And he gave him no inheritance
in it, no, not the pace of a foot, but he promised to give it him in
possession and to his seed after him.” 124 And so, it is clearly seen that
he, the lord and creator, failed to fulfill a promise made under oath; nor
did he ever, even according to the views of our opponents, fulfill it in the
temporal and visible world. Moreover, it does not appear that Abraham
in a temporal sense possessed this land at any time, whatever the un¬
learned may stammer about it.
[17] How This God Was Actually Seen in This Temporal World.—
It appears, also, in accordance with the belief of the dullards, that the
aforesaid lord and creator was plainly seen in this world, by several
persons face to face.125 So we read in Genesis, “And Jacob called the
name of the place Penuel, saying, ‘I have seen the Lord face to face.’ ” 120
And in Exodus it is written: “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abiu,
and seventy of the ancients of Israel went up, and they saw the God of
Israel”;127 and again, “And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a
man is wont to speak to his friend.” 128 And in the Book of Numbers this
lord says, “But it is not so with my servant Moses who is most faithful
in all my house, for I speak to him mouth to mouth and plainly and not
 .
59 Book of Two Principles (Part IV) 567
by riddles and figures.” 129 But our true Creator is never seen by anyone
with the corporeal eyes of this world, as the Blessed John says in the
Gospel, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who
is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” 130 And the
Apostle says in the first Epistle to Timothy, “To the king of ages, im¬
mortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory.” 131 And to the
Colossians the same Apostle says, referring to Christ, “Who is the image
of the invisible God.” 132
Therefore, the wise may read [the Scriptures] and believe without
doubt that there is an evil god, lord and creator; he is the source and
cause of all the evils referred to above. Otherwise, one would be led of
necessity to confess that the true God himself, who is shining and good,
holy, the living fountain and source of all sweetness, delight, and justice,
was directly the cause and origin of all evil, wickedness, bitterness, and
injustice. All opposites and contraries would flow forth entirely from
the Lord himself. In the opinion of the wise, such a supposition is a
most foolish fancy.

[V. Against the Garatenses]

[1] Rebuttal of the Garatenses.1—I have decided to write a further
rebuttal of the Garatenses, who often have repeated a boasting challenge
to us by saying: You Albanenses cannot prove by evidence from the
Holy Scriptures that an evil god is the creator of heaven and earth and
all other visible things, which repeatedly you proclaim him to be. I am
led to reply briefly to them.. .2 but it is known, however, that great
hostility repeatedly appears between Saracens, the baptized,3 Jews,
Tatars, and other religiously minded persons of this world. Although
all believe that there is only one Principle, holy, good, and merciful,
they are nonetheless found in constant contention with each other with
their harsh words and the cruelest of deeds—even though all undoubt¬
edly believe that in creation all men are brothers. I have already refuted
this most foolish belief of theirs with clarity sufficient for the wise.4
[2] Exposure of the Foolish.—Now, however, I wish to expose to
those who do have understanding the folly of the Garatenses; they, like
the others, believe in only one most benevolent Creator, and yet are
wont repeatedly to assert that there is another lord, the evil prince of
this world, who was a creature of the most excellent Creator. He, they
568 Catharist Literature

say, corrupted the four elements of the true Lord God. Out of these
elements this evil lord in the beginning formed and made man and
woman and all the other visible bodies of this world,6 from which have
sprung all other bodies whatsoever which today prevail on earth.
But since this opinion of theirs seems most foolish to the learned, I
demand that they confirm their interpretation by evidence from Holy
Scriptures, by stating where—in what book, in what text, or in what
part of the Bible—one may find that which they believe and openly
preach to men, namely, that an evil god or lord corrupted the four
elements of the good Lord God and that an evil lord in the beginning
made man and woman and all other bodies whatsoever, those of birds,
of fishes, of creeping things, and of cattle of this world, as they preach
and attest before men.
But perchance they may say: We can indeed prove that an evil god
in the beginning made man and woman and all other beings whatsoever
from which all carnal bodies are derived. For as one clearly finds in
Genesis, he, the evil lord, says to man and woman, to the birds, cattle,
and all the other carnal bodies: “Increase and multiply and fill the
earth.”® He says to the fishes: “Increase and multiply and fill the waters
of the sea.”7 In that book also, one finds that this god, whom we believe
to be evil, says: “Let us make man to our image and likeness”;8 and
again, “And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds,
and cattle and everything that creepeth after its kind”;9 and again, “And
the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman.”10
And again, He said: “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother
and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.”11 And
Christ says in the Gospel of the Blessed Mark: “But from the beginning
of the creation, God made them male and female.” And he adds, “For
this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to
his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not
two, but one flesh,”12 and so on. And it is in such wise, perhaps relying
on the foregoing texts and others like them, that they may allege that
an evil god in the beginning made the visible bodies of this world.
I will accept their allegation, so far as I am able, provided they
believe the foregoing evidence to be completely true. But let them tell
me whether or not they really believe and wish to accept the foregoing
evidence and other words which are recorded in the Book of Genesis.
If they say they do not, because the evil god is the author and no faith
59. Book of Two Principles (Part V) 569
at all is to be put in his words, I answer that denial: Therefore, you have
produced no proof from Scripture to substantiate doctrine such as you
daily preach. Therefore, how, by what boldness, can you utter such
words if you can provide no argument from Holy Scripture to buttress
your opinion?
But suppose they say: Although we believe this god to be evil, none¬
theless we accept as true this evidence which we have advanced just as
it is recorded in Genesis, to wit, that he, the evil god, made the visible
bodies of this world, as was pointed out in the foregoing. To them I
♦

reply: If you seek to confirm from the Book of Genesis doctrine such as
you preach daily—namely, that an evil god corrupted the four elements
and in the beginning made man and woman and all fleshly bodies—then
why do you daily contend with us, saying that we cannot prove to you
one evil creator god? Can we not plainly prove to you, through the texts
from Genesis with which you buttress your opinion, that this god, whom
you believe to be evil, is the creator of heaven, earth, and all other
things which are visible, just as he is their maker? For in Genesis, one
reads: “In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth
was void and empty”;13 and again, “And God created the great whales,
and every living and moving creature”; and so on, “and every winged
fowl according to its kind.”14 And again: “And God created man to his
own image, to the image of God he created him, male and female he
created them”;15 and again, “And he blessed the seventh day and sancti¬
fied it, because in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.”16 And again, “But Melchizedek, the king of Salem, bringing
forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,
blessed him and said, ‘Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who
created heaven and earth. And blessed be the most high God by whose
protection the enemies are in thy hands.’ ”17
And so by testimony from Genesis, in accordance with the demon¬
stration which we have presented for the Garatenses, we can plainly
prove the existence of an evil creator, who created heaven, earth, and
all other visible bodies whatsoever, exactly as has already been pointed
out with respect to the evil “maker” by evidence from Genesis.
[3] On All Creation.™—But perhaps some imprudent person among
them will say: We do, indeed, believe in only one Creator and Maker
of all, who created and made all visible and invisible things, just as is
written in the Gospel of the Blessed John: “All things were made by
570 Catharist Literature
him, and without him was nothing made.”19 And Paul says in the Acts
of the Apostles: “That I preach to you: God, who made the world, and
all things therein,” and so on, “and hath made of one all mankind to
dwell upon the whole face of the earth.”20 In the same book the apostles
said: “Lord, Thou art He that didst make heaven and earth, the sea,
and all things that are in them.”21 And in the Apocalypse is written:
“Fear the Lord and give Him honor, and adore ye Him that made
heaven and earth, the sea, and the fountain of waters.”22 And the
Apostle says to the Hebrews: “He that created all things is God.”23
And so, perhaps, by these passages and others like them might they
attest one sole Creator and Maker of all.
Against this I object as follows: If, indeed, the true Lord God in the
beginning made male and female, fowls and cattle, and all the other
visible bodies, why then, do you daily censure the carnal union of man
and woman, calling it the work of the devil? Why do you not produce
sons and daughters for your Lord God? Why do you not eat the meat,
the eggs, and the cheese which are from your Creator, most good? And
wherefore do you utterly condemn eating them, if you believe that there
is only one Creator and Maker of all visible things? It is not surprising
that the Romans24 constantly cite against you25 the text of the Blessed
Paul, who says to Timothy: “Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in
the last times some shall depart the faith, giving heed to spirits of error,
and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their
conscience seared, forbidding to marry, [enjoining] to abstain from
meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the
faithful, and by them that have known the truth. For every creature of
God is good, and nothing to be rejected.”26 Now if it be true that the
most benevolent and merciful God created and made man and woman
and the visible bodies of the world, you repeatedly scorn the creation of
the true Lord God when you condemn His matrimony.
The Garatenses are thus ensnared by their own words.
[4] A Declaration to the Faithful.—Let it be spread abroad to all
the faithful in Christ that, because of the slanderous statements of a
certain member of the Garatenses who boasted excessively in the pres¬
ence of our friends, I have been moved to write against him—as by
Satan the Lord was moved when He said in the Book of Job: “Thou
hast moved me against him,”27 and so on—although I have not troubled
myself to do this previously. But by the aid of Jesus Christ, I may say
59. Book of Two Principles (Part V) 571
with the prophet: “His sorrow shall be turned on his own head: and his
iniquity shall come down upon his crown.”28 Now, however, I serve
notice upon you Alb .. .29 and the whole group of your Garatenses that
if using the whole text of the Bible you wish to uphold and defend your
faith, that which you hold and preach every day before your believers—
which is that the devil corrupted the four elements of the true Lord
God, to wit, heaven, earth, water, and fire; that he in the beginning
made man and woman and the other visible bodies of this world—I
intend to uphold and defend my faith, which I hold and openly preach
before Christ’s faithful, by testimony of the Law, the prophets, and the
New Testament, which I believe to be true and to declare the truth,
namely, that there is an evil god who created heaven and earth, the
great whales, and every living and moving creature, and every winged
fowl according to its kind, and made man and woman; who formed man
of the slime of the earth, and breathed into him the breath of life—
things which this god has done, as I have clearly read in the Book of
Genesis.30 If you desire to meet this challenge, choose any place which
seems to you appropriate and convenient, in the full knowledge that I,
as I have already made clear, am prepared with the aid of the true
Father to sustain my position.
[5] A Challenge.—Again, I wish you to know, A1.. .,81 that I have
been informed by Peter of Ferrara32 of your admission to him that you
are unable to establish through the text of the New Testament this belief
of yours to the effect that the devil corrupted the four elements of the
good God and that he made male and female, or words to this effect.
Whence I say this to you and to all your Garatenses: If you wish to
confess this in the presence of our faithful followers and friends, to wit,
that you cannot prove the truth of your faith by texts which you believe
to be valid and to declare the truth; if, as is reported, you wish to
confess this, know you that I elect to uphold my faith and to prove it by
the Holy Scriptures and by texts which I believe to declare the truth.
My position is that this god, whom I believe to be evil, created heaven
and earth and the other things enumerated above. If you are unwilling
to admit this, defend, then, your faith, which you so assiduously preach,
by texts which you believe to be true and to declare the truth, just as I
stand ready to defend my faith. If, indeed, you do not wish to do tliis,
it is truly most astonishing that you ask men to accept your belief, which
is that the devil corrupted the four elements of the true Lord God, out
572 Catharist Literature

of which in the beginning he made the visible bodies of this world. It

is astonishing, moreover, that you cannot produce solid proof by texts
which you believe to be valid and to declare the truth, yet you choose to
reject my most benevolent faith, which I am prepared to buttress
strongly by evidence from the Law, the prophets, and from the New
Testament.
Now let the adversary of truth keep silent and never again dare to
utter the words referred to above!
[6. A Further Argument against the Garatenses.]33—A further argu¬
ment against the Garatenses is this: that every day they preach and
assert that in the beginning the devil corrupted the four elements of the
true Lord God, namely, heaven, earth, water, and fire. If this is true, as
they believe and repeatedly preach and affirm to their believers, let the
Garatenses answer the following objection which I pose against them:
Was this corruption of the holy elements of the true Lord God, which
was accomplished by the devil, a good and holy thing, or was it evil and
most vain? If they should answer that it was good and holy, the reply
then would be: If that were true, they would falsely believe and preach.
For they say the devil corrupted the four elements of the true God,
which would be untrue, since a good and holy act would not corrupt
the holy elements which were from the good Lord God. And, pursuing
this argument, it would be necessary for them to believe that the forma¬
tion of male and female, from which visible bodies were produced and
which they hold to have been effected in the beginning by the devil, was
good and holy. This is the exact opposite of their belief, since they
preach and absolutely affirm that acts of union of male and female are
wicked and not in accordance with the will of God. Why, then, do they
reject meat, eggs, and cheese, made from the most holy elements, if that
corruption or formation which was accomplished by the devil in the
beginning was good and holy? Hence, whoever may say this is admirably
refuted.
But assume them to reply: That corruption or formation of the most
holy elements of the true Lord God which was accomplished by the
devil was evil and most vain and contrary to God’s will, as they in¬
dubitably believe and affirm. The rejoinder then would be: Now let the
Garatenses answer whether the corruption of the most holy elements—
which was evil and vain, which was accomplished by the devil, as was
admitted above—was done by the will of the Most Holy Father or
59. Book of Two Principles (Part V) 573
entirely against His will. If they should say that the corruption of the
holy elements was done by the will of the Lord, for it is incredible that
the devil could corrupt the most holy elements contrary to the will of
God, the rejoinder would be: Thus it follows that the Lord had an evil
will when He desired evil and most vain corruption to be accomplished
in His most holy elements, as just stated. And if they should say that
the will of God was good and holy when He wished His holy elements
to be corrupted, for by that corruption or formation was established the
kingdom of the most holy Creator, namely, the kingdom of new souls,
who had been created from eternity and are now daily given form34
through the union of man and woman, then it would follow of necessity
that the union of man and woman is entirely good and holy, if thus and
in no other way God seeks completely to renew His kingdom with new
souls. Now this union ought not to be utterly repudiated, as the Ga-
ratenses repeatedly do, were it the true means by which new souls are
given form. If, however, they should say: Indeed, we believe this cor¬
ruption or formation was effected in the most holy elements contrary to
the will of God, then it follows of necessity that there is another prin¬
ciple, one of evil, which can corrupt the four elements of the most holy
Creator entirely against the latter’s will. This would not be true if there
were only one First Principle. Also, had the devil been a creature of the
true Lord God, he could not have done any violence to the most holy
elements against the latter’s will. Therefore, it follows that there are two
principles of things, to wit, one of good, the other of evil; and the latter
is the source of the corruption of the holy elements and also the source
of all evil. Therefore, the Garatenses are entangled in their own most
foolish arguments.
But perhaps they would still protest by saying: The corruption of the
holy elements was not accomplished by the will of the Lord nor against
His will, but was done by His permission and acquiescence. But let the
Garatenses answer whether this acquiescence and permission, by which
the most holy elements were corrupted, was good and holy, or evil and
most vain. If they should say: This acquiescence was good and holy,
then it follows of necessity that the holy elements were not corrupted at
all, since the most holy elements would not be corrupted by a good and
holy acquiescence. And also, that formation of man and woman which,
as they believe, was effected by the devil would be most good and holy;
which is the direct opposite of what the Garatenses believe. If, however,
574 Catharist Literature

they should say: It was evil and vain (as is the truth of the matter)—
then God made a most foolish and wicked concession, and thus God
was the cause of this evil, as the Apostle says to the Romans: “Not only
they that do them are worthy of death, but they also that consent to
them.1’35 It is absolutely impossible to believe this of the true Lord God.
It then follows of necessity that there is another principle, one of evil,
who forced the true God to permit and suffer the wicked and most vain
corruption in His most holy elements, quite against His will. This in no
wise would the true Lord God do entirely and directly of His own will.
And so, in all the ways recounted above, the Garatenses are ensnared
in their own words.

[VI. On Will]
[1] On the Ignorance of Many Persons.—Since many persons en¬
veloped in the darkness of ignorance maintain that not only those who
will be saved but those who never will be saved have a potency for
salvation and can be saved, I have decided to demolish this absurd
opinion with most valid argument. Now, let the unlearned answer the
question whether a person can at any moment do that which he has not
done, does not do, never will do. If they reply in the negative, [they
admit that] there is no doubt of its impossibility, for that which cannot
be accomplished at any time is never possible of accomplishment.
At this point I state the issue:1 Let us presume that there is a certain
person who never did good in order to merit salvation, is not doing so,
and never will do so. Therefore, in accordance with the above reply, it
was impossible for him at any moment to do good in order to merit
salvation; hence, the potency for salvation was never in him. Nor, if the
potency for salvation was never in him, did this individual ever have a
free will by which he might merit salvation. Why, then, will God judge
him, as the dullards opine, if in him there never was the potency for
salvation nor for doing good in order to merit salvation, as was admitted
above? Hence, by this reasoning, vain will be the belief of those who
declared that those persons who are to be saved as well as those who
never are to be saved have a potency for salvation and can be saved,
as was said above.
However, they may say: Indeed, this person could do good if he chose
—although he never has done, does not now, and never will do good—
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VI) 575
but he does not wish to. This is the opinion of dullards. Now, I raise the
question of will in the same way as above I raised the question of
potency. For instance, there is a certain person who never had a good
will by which to merit salvation; he does not now have and never will
have it. Let them tell me whether this person can ever have the good
will which merits salvation. If they say no, because he never had this
desire and never will have it—as was said above in the matter of potency
and as also is the truth of the matter—then, if he had not the good will
which would merit salvation, he indubitably has not the potency to
achieve salvation or to do good in order to merit it, since without good
will no one can be saved. Therefore, there was never in him the capacity
for desiring to do good or for doing good in order to be saved.
In the same way I raise the question of knowledge. Suppose there is
a certain person who never was wise enough to tell good from evil or
truth from falsehood in order to merit salvation, one who never was and
never will be wise enough (undoubtedly many such are to be encountered
in this world). If the reply to my question is in the negative, as it was in
the matter of potency and of will, then never can this person have the
wisdom to distinguish good from evil so as to merit salvation. Therefore,
he can not be saved, because without discernment no one can be saved.
Therefore, as was pointed out above, this man never had within himself
the capacity for salvation or to desire or know the good in order to
merit salvation; and by this reasoning will be destroyed the belief of
those who say that God shall judge men on their ability (arbitrium) to
distinguish good from evil and that in those who never will be saved
there is the potency for salvation.
But if they reply rashly, saying that indeed this person was able to do
what he did not, does not now, and never will do; and was able to have
this desire which he had not, has not, and never will have; that he was
able to have this knowledge which he had not, has not, and never will
have, my answer is this: If that were absolutely true, we might say as
well that one can make a goat pope of the Church of the Romans and
do all things which are impossible! That one could wish to burn in
eternal fire, to suffer all evils and the worst of misfortunes, and, indeed,
could have perfect knowledge of the true Lord God, knowledge as whole
and perfect as God has!—This is stupid to say and absurd to believe. In
truth, if that which was not, is not, and never will be can come to pass.
576 Catharist Literature

and if it wholly and directly exists in potency, it follows without a doubt

that the angels and all the saints could become demons, demons could
become glorious angels; Christ could become the devil, and the devil
the glorious Christ; and all impossibilities could exist and do exist in
potency! This is most false to say and most absurd to believe.
Now the right of the matter is this: A person is able to do whatever
_ *

he has done, does now, and will do in the future; this existed or exists
in him potentially. That which he has not done, does not now do, and
never will do, a person cannot do. It did not and does not exist poten¬
tially in him in any way, for we cannot properly affirm that that which
never eventuates in act in any way exists in potency.4
A second comment:31 say that in all things which were, are, and shall
be the following two things were necessary before they came into exist¬
ence: the necessity of being and the impossibility of not being. This is
particularly true in respect of Him who has complete knowledge from
eternity of all the past, the present, and the future. For if God knows
that something will be before it exists, it is impossible for it not to come
into existence, because God could not know that it would come to pass
were there the possibility that it would not. For instance, if before Peter
dies someone knows that he is to die today, it is necessary for him to die
today, since it is impossible for him both to die and not to die today.
Therefore, before his death there pre-existed the necessity of dying and
the impossibility of not dying. In respect of him who knew that Peter
would die today, then, it was necessary for Peter to die today and im¬
possible for him not to die today.
Here is another argument [against free will]: God, as many believe,
made His angels good and perfect. Did He, or did He not, know before
they existed that they would become demons? If He did not know it,
then He is imperfect, not absolutely all-knowing. In the minds of wise
men this is impossible. Therefore, He indubitably knew that they would
become demons before they did so, since the First Cause is intelligence,
knowing perfectly that which shall come to pass in accordance with that
which has the possibility of coming to pass, as Aristotle proves in the
third book of Physics, where he says that to the First Cause all
are in the present.4 Therefore, the necessity of their being demons and
the impossibility of their not being demons preceded the existence of the
angels. It was, then, utterly impossible for them not to be demons, and
especially so in respect of God, in whom all things which were, are, and
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VI) 577
shall be, are in the present, as was said previously. How, by what
audacity, can the ignorant say that the aforesaid angels could remain
good and holy with their Lord for all time, since that was forever im¬
possible in God, who knows all things before they come to pass, as
Susanna says in the Book of Daniel, “O eternal God, who knowest
hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to pass”?5 And
so it naturally follows that all things, of necessity, were created in the
First Cause. Therefore, those things which are created have being and
can exist; and, conversely, those things which are not created have no
being and cannot exist in any way. So vanishes the opinion of those who
said that the angels had the power both to sin and not to sin.
[2] More on This Concept.*—The concept presented above cannot,
I maintain, be reconciled with the theories of those who believe that
there is only one First Principle, who believe that pew souls or spirits
are daily being created, and that the Lord must judge the good and the
wicked, adults and children (magnos et parvos), entirely on the basis of
their free will or choice. Let these persons answer this question: Ac¬
cording to their belief are all peoples to be gathered together before
God? If this were true, there would be an untold multitude of children
of all races, four years of age or less,7 and an astonishing multitude of
the dumb, the deaf, and the simple-minded, none of whom were ever
able to do penance, none of whom had from God in any measure either
the ability or the knowledge to do good. Why or how would the Lord
Jesus be able to say to these: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess
you the kingdom prepared for you from die foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me to eat,”8 and so on? Such a statement
most certainly could not be true, since they never were in any way able
to do so [of their free will], nor have they done so. But if, perchance,
anyone should say that they are to be damned to eternity, I answer that
this is wholly rejected in terms of free will. How would the Lord be able
to say to these: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire. For
I was hungry and you gave me not to eat,”9 and so on? For they could
reasonably excuse themselves on the very grounds of free will, saying:
We were never able in any way to do this because You never bestowed
upon us the capacity for or the knowledge of how to do good. And so
free will as it is conceived of by our opponents is entirely rejected.
Consider this most evil concept! There are, indeed, some who believe
that children who are born and who die on the same day and whose
578 Catharist Literature

souls have been newly created will be tortured in eternal punishment

forever and ever, and that they can never escape therefrom. Indeed,
how utterly astounding is their boldness in preaching that the Lord
Jesus must judge all men in terms of free will, for that concept, as
was shown above, is utterly untrue.

[VII. On Persecutions]
fl] On Striking1 the Shepherd.—“For it is written, ‘I will strike the
shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.’”2 “The
w

shepherd” means Christ; “the dispersed sheep of the flock” refers to the
disciples. But the true Lord God did not by His own act absolutely and
directly strike His Son Jesus Christ, for if He had committed this murder
by His own act exclusively and essentially no one could incriminate
Pilate or the Pharisees or Judah in any way, for they would have carried
out the will of God fully; on the contrary, it would have been a sin to
resist the will of God. Whence the explanation is this: God “struck” His
Son by enduring His death, for they were powerless to carry out the
deed unless the Lord himself had permitted it. And this is what Christ
said to Pilate: “Thou shouldst not have any power against me unless it
were given thee from above.”8 “Unless [permission] were given,” He
said—not “unless the power were given”—as though He were saying:
Unless it were allowed you by God, you would have no power to do me
any hurt.4 For it was the evil principle through whom Pilate and the
Pharisees and Judah and the others committed this murder. The true
Lord God endured this wicked deed, being unable in a better way to
deliver His people from the power of the enemy. He says through
Isaiah: “For the wickedness of my people have I struck him.”6 For the
disciples, too, have been dispersed, that is, put apart from Christ by the
power of evil spirits, for a certain purpose, which was not a good one,
as is subsequently recorded: “Then the disciples all leaving Him fled.”6
[In the manuscript, the passage just translated is followed by miscel¬
laneous items, chiefly excerpts from the Pauline epistles, which occupy
one folio.7 Thereafter appears the Catharist ritual in Latin (see No. 57,
part A) and then the following passages on persecution.]
[2] On the Persecution of the Prophets, of Christ, of the Apostles,
and of Others Who Followed Them.—As I pondered when reading and
rereading the Holy Scriptures, it seemed to me that many times in them
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VII) 579

were attested the evils which the prophets and Christ and the apostles
once bore in all forgiveness while doing good for the salvation of their
souls; and as well, how in the last days the followers of Christ must bear
many scandals, tribulations, persecutions, afflictions, sorrows, even
death through false Christs and false prophets, and through evil men and
seducers; and how they should forgive them that persecute and calum¬
niate them, pray for them, do good unto them, likewise seeking not to
resist them. In just that way now the true Christians are seen to act,
fulfilling the Holy Scriptures to their own good and honor, and indeed
the ungodly and the sinners are seen to act to their own hurt, so as to
fill up their sins always to the measure of their fathers.
Whence Paul says in the second Epistle to Timothy: “Know also this,
that in the last days shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers
of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to
parents, ungrateful, wicked, without affection, without peace, slanderers,
incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, stubborn, puffed up, and
lovers of pleasures more than of God, having an appearance indeed of
godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.”8 And
Christ says in the Gospel of Matthew: “There shall arise false Christs
and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch
as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”9 And to the Romans Paul
says: “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God de¬
livered them up to a reprobate sense to do those things which are not
convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice,
wickedness; full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity; whis¬
perers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, pleasing to
themselves, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.”19
And the Blessed Peter says in his second Epistle: “But there were also
false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying
teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition and deny the Lord who
bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many
shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall
be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned
words make merchandise of you, whose judgment now of a long time
lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.”11 And Paul says to
Timothy in the second Epistle: “But evil men and seducers shall grow
 580 Catharist Literature

worse and worse, erring and driving into error.”12 And in the Acts of
the Apostles Paul says: “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole
flock, wherein the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops, to rule the
Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood. For I
know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you,
not sparing the flock. And of them shall arise men speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, keeping in
memory.”13
[3] On the Persecution of the Prophets.—Moreover, one finds many
references to the persecution of the prophets and of Christ and of the
apostles. For Paul says to the Hebrews concerning the persecution of
the prophets: “And what shall I yet say? For the time would fail me to
tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the
prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained
promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,
escaped the edge of the sword, recovered strength from weakness, be¬
came valiant in battle, put to flight the armies of foreigners. Women
received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not
accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection. And
others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and
prisons. They were killed, they were cut asunder, they were tempted,
they were put to death by the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins,
in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted, of whom the world was
not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in
caves of the earth. And all these, being approved by the testimony of
faith, received not the promise, God providing some better thing for us,
that they should not be perfected without us.”14 And Christ says in the
Gospel of the Blessed Matthew: “For so they persecuted the prophets
that were before you.”15 And in the Acts of the Apostles, the Blessed
Stephen says: “You stiffnecked and noncircumcised in heart and ears,
you always resist die Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you also.
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have
slain them who foretold of the coming of this just Christ, of whom you
have been now the betrayers and murderers who have received the Law
by the disposition of angels and have not kept it.”16 And in the Gospel
of Matthew, Christ says: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
that build the sepulchers of the prophets and adorn the monuments of
the just, and say, ‘If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VII) 581

not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Where¬
fore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them
that killed the prophets. Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers.
You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment
of hell? Therefore behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and
scribes, and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some
you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that
upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed upon the
earth, from the blood of Abel the just even unto the blood of Zechariah
the son of Berechiah, whom you killed between the temple and the
altar. Amen, I say to you, all these things shall come upon this gener¬
ation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest
them that are sent unto thee! How often would I have gathered together
thy children as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and
thou wouldst not! Behold, your house shall be left to you desolate. For
I say to you, you shall not see me further, till you say, ‘Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord.’”17 And the Blessed James says
in the Epistle: “Take, my brethren, for an example of suffering evil, of
labor and patience, of forbearance, the prophets, who spoke in the name
of the Lord. Behold, we account them blessed who have endured. You
have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the
Lord, that the Lord is merciful and compassionate.”18
[4] On the Passion and Persecution of Christ.—Moreover, the tribu¬
lation and persecution and passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ,
occurring after the tribulation of the prophets of which we spoke above,
is manifestly displayed in Holy Scriptures. For it is found in the Gospel
of the Blessed Matthew that when Christ was a child it was announced
to Joseph by an angel: “ ‘Arise, and take the child and His mother, and
fly into Egypt, and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to
pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy Him.’ Who arose, and
took the child and His mother and retired into Egypt, and he was there
until the death of Herod.”l* And in the Gospel of the Blessed Luke it
is written of Christ: “And Joseph and His mother were wondering at
those things which were spoken concerning Him. And Simeon blessed
them and said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall
and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be
582 Catharist Literature

the Blessed Matthew: “And Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the

twelve disciples apart and said to them, ‘Behold, we go up to Jerusalem,
and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes,
and they shall condemn Him to death. And shall deliver Him to the
Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day
He shall rise again’”; and again, “You know that after two days shall
be the pasch, and the Son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified.”21
And in the Gospel of John, Christ says: ‘“Amen, amen, I say unto you,
before Abraham was made, I am.’ They took up stones therefore to cast
at Him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple”;22 and again,
“The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees gathered a council and
said, ‘What shall we do, for this man doth many miracles? If we let him
alone so, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take
away our place and nation.’ But one of them, named Caiaphas, being the
high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing; neither do you
consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not.’ And this he spoke not of
himself, but, being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus
should die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but to gather
together in one the children of God that were dispersed. From that day
therefore they devised to put Him to death”;23 and again, “The world
cannot hate you, but me it hateth because I give testimony of it that the
works thereof are evil.”24 And again, “These things I command you,
that you love one another. If the world hate you, know ye that it hath
hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would
love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen
you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my
word that I said to you, ‘The servant is not greater than his master.’ If
they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept
my word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to
you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.”25
And the Blessed John says in the Apocalypse: “And the dragon stood
before the woman who was ready to be delivered, that when she should
be delivered, he might devour her son.”26 And the Blessed James says:
“You have feasted upon earth, and in riotousness you have nourished
your hearts in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to
death the Just One and he resisted you not.”27 And in the Acts of the
Apostles, the Blessed Peter says: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words:
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VII) 583
Jesus of Nazareth, approved of God among you by miracles and
wonders and signs which God did by Him, in the midst of you, as you
also know; this same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, you, by the hands of wicked men, have crucified
and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell,
as it was impossible that He should be holden by it.”28 And again,
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God hath
made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have cruci¬
fied.”29 And again: “Ye men of Israel, why wonder at this, or why look
you upon us, as if by our strength or power we had made this man to
walk? The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,
the God of our fathers, hath glorified His Son Jesus, whom you indeed
delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged He
should be released. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and
desired a murderer to be granted unto you. But the author of life you
killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.
And in the faith of His name, this man, whom you have seen and known,
hath His name strengthened; and the faith which is by Him, hath given
soundness in the sight of you all. And now, brethren, I know that you
did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers. But those things which
God before had showed by the mouth of all the prophets, that His
Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled. Be penitent, therefore, and be
converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that when the times of
refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and He shall
send Him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ, whom heaven
indeed must receive until the times of the restitution of all things, which
God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning
of the world.”30 And again, the apostles with one accord said: “Lord,
thou that didst make heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are
in them, who, by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father David, thy
servant, hast said, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people meditate
vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes assembled
together against the Lord and his Christ. For of a truth there assembled
together in this city against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast
anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of
Israel, to do what thy hand and thy counsel decreed to be done.” 31 And
again, “But Peter and the apostles answering, said, ‘We ought to obey
God, rather than men. The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus,
584 Catharist Literature

whom you put to death, hanging Him upon a tree. Him hath God
exalted with His right hand, to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance
to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things,
and the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to all that obey Him.’ When
they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart and they thought
to put them to death.”82 And again, “God sent the word to the children
of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all). You know
the word which hath been published through all Judea, for it began from
Galilee after the baptism which John preached: Jesus of Nazareth, how
God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about
doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was
with Him. And we are witnesses of all things that He did in the land of
the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom the Jews rejected and killed, hanging
Him upon a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave Him to
be made manifest; not to all the people but to witnesses preordained by
God, even to us, who did eat and drink with Him after he arose again
from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to
testify that it is He who was appointed by God to be judge of the living
and the dead. To Him all the prophets give testimony that by His name
all receive remission of sins who believe in him.”33 And again, “Men,
brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you
fear God, to you the word of this salvation is sent. For they that inhabit
Jerusalem, and the rulers thereof, not knowing Him nor the voices of
the prophets which are read every Sabbath, judging Him have fulfilled
them; and finding no cause of death in Him, they desired of Pilate that
they might kill Him. And when they had fulfilled all things that were
written of Him, taking Him down from the tree, they laid Him in a
sepulcher. But God raised Him up from the dead the third day.”34 And
the Blessed Peter says in the first Epistle: “Christ, therefore, having
suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought, for he
that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins, that now he may
live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men but
according to the will of God And the Blessed Mark says in the
Gospel: “And He taketh Peter and James and John with Him, and He
began to fear and be sorrowful and be heavy. And He saith to them,
36
‘My soul is sorrowful even unto death; stay you here and watch.”
And again: “And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness
over the whole earth until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VII) 585

cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani?’ which
is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”37
And again, “And Jesus, having cried out with a loud voice, gave up the
ghost.”38 And the Blessed Matthew says: “Then they crucified with Him
two thieves, one on the right hand and one on the left”;39 and again,
“And Jesus, again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”49
And the Blessed Luke says: “And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said,
‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’ And saying this, He gave
up the ghost.”44
[5] On the Tribulation of the Saints.—The subject of our Lord Jesus
Christ’s tribulation and passion has been quite clearly attested, as was
shown most abundantly in the foregoing. Now we must speak of the
tribulation and persecution and death which the apostles and their heirs
had to suffer in time to come, doing good and forgiving, and how they
must also endure in their own time. In just that way true Christians
now are seen to act, those called heretics now, as they were in the time
of Paul, as he himself says in the Acts of the Apostles: “But this I
confess to thee, that according to the way which they call a heresy, so
do I serve God my father”;42 and again, “For as concerning this sect,
you know that it is everywhere contradicted.”43 Whence our Lord Jesus
Christ when describing the forthcoming persecution to His disciples
says in the Gospel of the Blessed Matthew: “Blessed are they that suffer
persecution for justice’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you and persecute you and speak
all that is evil against you untruly for my sake; be glad in that day and
rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven, for so they persecuted
the prophets that were before you.”44 And again: “Behold, I send you
as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye, therefore, wise as serpents and
simple as doves. But beware of men; for they will deliver you up in
councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues, and you shall
be brought before governors and before kings for my sake, for a testi¬
mony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they shall deliver you up,
take no thought how or what to speak, for it shall be given you in that
hour what to speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your
Father that speaketh in you. The brother also shall deliver up the
brother to death, and the father the son, and the children shall rise up
against their parents and shall put them to death; and you shall be hated
by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall persevere unto the end.
586 Catharist Literature

he shall be saved. And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee
into another. Amen, I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of
Israel till the Son of man come. The disciple is not above his master,
nor the servant above his lord; it is enough for the disciple that he be as
his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman
of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?”45
And in the Gospel, Christ says: “Amen, amen, I say to you, that you
shall lament and weep, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be
made sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman,
when she is in labor, hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when
she hath brought forth the child, she remembereth no more the anguish,
for joy that a man is born into the world. So also you now indeed have
sorrow, but I will see you again and your heart shall rejoice; and your
joy no man shall take from you.”48 And in the Gospel of the Blessed
Matthew Christ says: “Take heed that no man seduce you. For many
will come in my name saying, ‘I am Christ,’ and they will seduce many.
And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not
troubled; for these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For
nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there
shall be pestilences and famines and earthquakes in places; now all these
are the beginnings of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be
afflicted, and you shall be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And
then shall many be scandalized, and shall betray one another, and shall
hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce
many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall
grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.”47
And in the Apocalypse it is said: “Behold, the devil will cast you into
prison, that you may be tried, and you shall have tribulation ten days.
Be thou faithful until death, and I will give thee the crown of life.”48
And in the Gospel of John, Christ says to His disciples: “These things
I command you, that you love one another. If the world hate you, know
ye that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the
world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I
have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember my word that I said to you, ‘The servant is not greater than
his master.’ If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if
they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all these things
they will do to you for my name’s sake, because they know not Him
that sent me.”49
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VII) 587

[6] How the Saints Have Suffered.—It is made quite clear in Holy
Scriptures, as we pointed out in the preceding, how our Lord Jesus
Christ showed through His words that in His name His disciples would
bear tribulations and persecutions and even death in days to come. But
now we must describe how they in their time bore many evils and tribu¬
lations and persecutions and even death in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, just as He himself foretold to them in the Holy Scriptures. For
He says in the Gospel of John: “And now I come to thee; and these
things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in them¬
selves. I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them
because they are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. I pray
not that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou
shouldst keep them from evil. They are not of the world, as I also am
not of the world.”50 And the Blessed John in the first Epistle says:
“Wonder not, brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have
passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.”51 And the
■

Blessed Peter in the first Epistle says: “Dearly beloved, think not strange
the burning heat which is to try you, as if some new thing happened to
you. But if you partake of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice that when His
glory shall be revealed you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you
be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed, for that
which is of the honor, glory, and power of God, and that which is his
Spirit shall rest upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or
a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men’s things; but if as a Chris¬
tian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For
the time is that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first
at us, what shall be the end of them that did not believe the gospel of
God? And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the un¬
godly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them also that suffer ac¬
cording to the will of God commend their souls in good deeds to the
faithful Creator.”52 And Paul in the Acts of the Apostles says of himself:
“And I, indeed, did formerly think that I ought to do many things
contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which also I did at Jeru¬
salem, and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received
authority of the chief priests, and when they were put to death, I brought
the sentence. And oftentimes punishing them, in every synagogue, I
compelled them to blaspheme, and being yet more mad against them, I
persecuted them even unto foreign cities.”53 And the Blessed Peter in
the first Epistle says: “For this is thankworthy, if for conscience toward
588 Catharist Literature

God, a man endure sorrow, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it if

committing sin and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well
you suffer patiently, this is thankworthy before God, for unto this are
you called because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example
that you should follow His steps. Who did no sin, neither was guile
found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, did not revile; when He
suffered, He threatened not, but delivered himself to him that judged
him unjustly. Who His own self bore our sins in His body upon the tree,
that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice; by whose stripes you
were healed. For you were as sheep going sometimes astray, but you
are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.”54 And in
the Acts of the Apostles it is written: “And at that time there was raised
a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and
they were all dispersed through the countries of Judaea and Samaria,
except the apostles.”65 And Paul says to the Romans: “Who then shall
separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or
famine, or nakedness, or danger, or persecution, or the sword? As it is
written, ‘For Thy sake we are put to death all the day long; we are
accounted as sheep for the slaughter.’ But in all these things we over¬
come because of Him that hath loved us. For I am sure that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor virtues,
nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God,
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”68 And the Blessed Peter in the first
Epistle says: “If now you must be for a little time made sorrowful in
divers temptations, that the trial of your faith, much more precious than
gold which is tried by the fire, may be found unto praise and glory and
honor at the appearing of Jesus Christ.”57 And Paul in the Acts of the
Apostles says: “‘Men, brethren, I have conversed with all good knowl¬
edge before God until this present day.’ And the high priest Ananias
commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth.”58 And
again Paul himself says to the Corinthians in the first Epistle: “Even
unto this hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buf¬
feted and have no fixed abode; and we labor, working with our own
hands. We are reviled and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it.
We are blasphemed and we entreat; we are made as the refuse of this
world, the offscouring of all even until now. I write not these things to
confound you, but I admonish you as my dearest children.”59 And the
59. Book of Two Principles (Pari VII) 589
Blessed Peter in the first Epistle says: “And who is he that can hurt
you, if you be zealous of good? But if also you suffer anything for
justice’ sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, so that you
be not troubled.”®0 And Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians says
of himself: “For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to
be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.”61 And
Paul in the second Epistle to the Corinthians: “In all things we suffer
tribulation, but are not distressed; we are straitened, but are not desti¬
tute; we suffer persecution, but are not forsaken; we are cast down, but
we perish not. Always bearing about in our body the mortification of
Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies.
For we who live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake; that
the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh.”92 And
to the Ephesians, the same Apostle says: “Finally, brethren, be strength¬
ened in the Lord and in the might of His power. Put you on the armor
of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil.
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the princi¬
palities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness,
against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto
you the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day,
and to stand in all things perfect. Stand, therefore, having your loins
girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, and your
feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in all things taking
the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery
darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. By all prayer and
supplication praying at all times in the spirit, and in the same watch¬
ing.”68 And in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, the same Apostle
says: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. Who comforteth us in all
our tribuation, that we also may be able to comfort them who are in all
distress, by the exhortation wherewith we also are exhorted by God.
For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so also by Christ doth our
comfort abound. Now whether we be in tribulation, it is for your
exhortation and salvation; or whether we be exhorted, it is for your
exhortation and salvation, which worketh in us in the enduring of the
same sufferings which we also suffer. That our hope for you may be
steadfast, knowing that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so shall
590 Catharist Literature

you be also of the consolation. For we would not have you ignorant,
brethren, of one tribulation, which came to us in Asia, that we were
pressed out of measure above our strength, so that we were weary even
of life. But we had in ourselves the answer of death, that we should not
be confident in ourselves but in God who raiseth the dead. Who hath
delivered and doth deliver us out of so great dangers; in whom we trust
that He will yet also deliver us. You helping withal in prayer for us.’ 64

And to the Galatians Paul said: “For you have heard of my conversation
in times past in the Jews’ religion: how that, beyond measure, I perse¬
cuted the Church of God and wasted it. And I made progress in the
Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more
abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”65 And again, to the
Corinthians in the second Epistle: “I speak according to dishonor, as if
we had been weak in this part. Wherein if any man dare (I speak
foolishly), I dare also. They are Hebrews? So am I. They are the seed
of Abraham? So am I. [They are ministers of Christ?]661 speak as one
less wise. I am more, in many more labors, in prisons more frequently,
in stripes above measure, in deaths often. Of the Jews five times did I
receive forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods; once I was
stoned. Thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I was in peril of
the sea; in journeying often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in
perils from my own nation, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the
city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils from false
brethren; in labor and painfulness, in much watchings, in hunger and
thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Besides those things,
which are without, my daily instance, the solicitude for all the churches.
Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is scandalized, and I am not
on fire?”67 And in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul says:
“So that we ourselves also glory in you in the churches of God for your
patience and faith, and in all your persecutions and retributions which
you endure, for an example of the just judgment of God, that you may
be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer.
Seeing it is a just thing with God to repay tribulation to them that
trouble you, and to you who are troubled, rest with us when our Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven.”68 And in the first Epistle to
Timothy, Paul says of himself: “I give Him thanks who hath strength¬
ened me, even to Christ Jesus our Lord, for that He hath counted me
faithful, putting me in the ministry who before was a blasphemer, and
59. Book of Two Principles (Part VII) 591
a persecutor, and contumelious. But I obtained the mercy of God, be¬
cause I did it ignorantly in unbelief.”69 And to the Thessalonians, in the
first Epistle, the Apostle himself says: “You, however, are become fol¬
lowers of the brethren of the churches of God which are in Judaea, in
Christ Jesus. For you also have suffered the same things from your own
countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord
Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and
are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles that
they may be saved, to fill up their sins always, for the wrath of God is
come upon them to the end.”70 And again: “And we sent Timothy, our
brother and the minister of God in the gospel of Christ, to confirm you
%

and exhort you concerning your faith, that no man should be moved in
these tribulations, for yourselves know, that we are appointed thereunto.
For even when we were with you, we foretold you that we should suffer
tribulations, as also it is come to pass and you know. For this cause
also, I, forbearing no longer, sent to know your faith, lest perhaps he
that tempteth should have tempted you, and our labor should be made
vain.”71 And to the Corinthians, in the first Epistle, Paul says: “If in this
life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”72
And to the Philippians, Paul says: “And in nothing be ye terrified by
the adversaries, which to them is a cause of perdition but to you of
salvation, and this from God. For unto you it is given for Christ not
only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him, having the same
conflict as that which you have seen in me and now have heard of me.”78
Whence, the same Paul in that second Epistle to Timothy says: “But
thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-
suffering, love, patience, persecutions, afflictions, such as came upon me
at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured, and
out of them all the Lord delivered me. And all that will live godly in
Christ Jesus, suffer persecution.”74

And now the book is finished; let us give thanks to Christ.

592 Catharist Literature

60. The Catharist Church and Its Interpretation

of the Lord’s Prayer
The two documents translated here are among the most recent to be iden¬
tified as Catharist works. Both are found in a small manuscript written in
Provencal, which before 1635 came into the possession of James Ussher, the
scholarly Anglican archbishop of Armagh (1625-1656).1 In certain respects
—their language,2 their copious citation and paraphrase of Scripture, and
their foundation in dualism—they are alike; but it was probably more by
accident than because of a common origin that they were copied into the
same manuscript, for they appear to present the views of two different
factions of Cathars. The first document, for which we have supplied the
title A Vindication of the Church of God, is an exposition of the character,
powers, ethical standards, and practices of a Catharist church which taught
mitigated dualism. The second document, a gloss on the Lord’s Prayer
comparable in form but not in substance to the gloss in the Catharist ritual
in Latin (No. 57, part B), was composed by a believer in absolute dualism.
Chapters I and II of the Vindication are devoted to a discussion of the
character and powers of the Church of God, or of Christ. The argument
parallels the discourse on the same theme in the Catharist ritual in Proven¬
cal (see No. 57, part B), at the point when the power to say the Lord’s
Prayer is being transmitted to the initiate. The moral code described in
chapters III-IX is essentially that outlined in the rituals in the injunctions to
the believer—against murder, adultery, lying, oath-taking, and theft—but
the Vindication makes no mention of the ascetic practices required of the
perfected heretic. Chapter X, demonstrating that the persecution of true
Christians is inevitable, is similar to, though briefer than, the passages on
persecution in The Book of the Two Principles (No. 59, part VII). Chapter
XI, which defends the spiritual baptism by imposition of hands as the true
baptism taught by Christ, parallels the discussion of the same subject in the
rituals and relies on many of the same biblical texts; but unlike them it in¬
cludes a polemic against the Roman Church on the question of baptism in
water.8
Venckeleer argues that the Vindication, or a text which was the model for
it, was composed sometime between 1210 and 1240.4 A later date is more
probable, however, in view of the tenor of the treatise’s remarks about John
the Baptist, who in chapter XI is referred to as a forerunner of Christ who
baptized with water “only to lead the people to believe in the baptism of
Christ, and to give firm testimony of Christ, whose coming he preached”
and “in order to show the people that it was Christ who would perform the
other baptism.” All early Cathars condemned John the Baptist as an
emissary of the devil, who sent him to baptize in water in order to hinder
Christ’s mission;5 but toward the middle of the thirteenth century some
began to accept John’s inspiration as divine, according to Moneta of Cre-
60. Catharist Church (Introduction) 593
mona, writing in 1241-1244.8 Rainerius Sacconi in 1250 also noted that the
Cathars of Concorezzo “only recently came to believe correctly about John
the Baptist, whom they all formerly condemned.”7 The Vindication seems
to reflect this changing attitude.8
There are two hints that the Vindication emanated from a group of miti¬
gated dualists.9 One is the attitude toward John the Baptist just referred to,
which is comparable to the position taken by the church of Concorezzo. The
other is that among more than one hundred scriptural texts cited, only two
come from the Old Testament, both identified as from the Book of Wisdom,
although one is actually from Proverbs. Mitigated dualists were more
sweeping than radical dualists in rejecting the Old Testament as the work
of the devil.10 Otherwise, the exposition presents ideas which would have
been acceptable to all factions among the Cathars, and states their ethical
teaching and their view of themselves in terms that accord very well with
other evidence from about the middle of the thirteenth century.11
The gloss on the Lord’s Prayer (part B), commenting on each phrase of
the Prayer, describes the relationship between God and his creation in
symbolic terms derived from biblical texts and emphasizes the promise stated
in its Prologue that God will redeem His people from captivity through His
Son Jesus Christ, who taught the people of God how to pray and who, after
the Last Judgment, will rule over the kingdom of the elect. It describes
creation as a hierarchy of seven substances through which the divine will
99
works. Three of these substances are celestial in nature: They are lights
99 44 44
or “charities, visitations” or “mercies,” and spirits.” But the last named
have fallen away to become the “people of God” in exile. In their terrestrial
captivity the spirits are linked with two substances, “lives” and “souls”; two
other substances, “hearts” and “bodies,” 12 are mentioned as subordinate
to souls. Each substance is also symbolized by other names of biblical origin,
with the result that the Prayer can be interpreted in terms of many other
scriptural passages.
God is the Father of all substances. He himself is charity and dwells in
“heaven,” which is the symbol of the first of His substances, the charities
or lights. This is the seventh heaven which Isaiah saw in a vision.14 There
also Jesus Christ, the Son, is in the Father and the Father in Him, and the
people of God are linked to the Father through Christ (chap. I). The third
person of the Trinity is mentioned only incidentally, in connection with
Christ’s mission of redemption and as inspiring David and the prophets
(chaps. HI, V, VI, VIII).
We will return to the charities and the visitations after noting the situation
of the third of the heavenly substances, the spirits. As already said, they had
sinned in a manner not explicitly stated. They confess themselves now guilty
of many offenses (chap. VI), for which Christ came to give penance
(chap. I). The psalmist David is called the first father of the people, the
spirit of their first form (chaps. IV, VI), and he is also designated as
“Amen,”15 meaning one whose sin made it necessary for Christ to suffer
594 Catharist Literature
and die (chap. XI). David’s life is joined with the life of the people, his soul
with theirs; his voice utters their lament in captivity.16
The bondage of the people is to evil, for side by side with the charities
and visitations of the Father are found “strange charities” and their visita¬
tions, which represent night as the substances of the Father represent light
(chap. I). These are also the cords and bonds of iniquity, which the Lord
must break (chap. II). How the captivity occurred is depicted in the words
of biblical texts. The enemy invaded the land of the living, entered the gates
of Jerusalem, brought her children down to earth to dwell in darkness
(chap. VIII), under the power of the four kingdoms of Babylon17 (chap. III).
There the spirits, joined with lives and souls (the three substances are sym¬
bolized by “the kingdom, the power, and the glory” of the doxology [chaps.
IX, X, XI]), acknowledge that they belong to God the Father, although they
are held captive by evil. “Evil” means the devil, he who in the Scriptures
is called Satan, the enemy who sowed weeds in the Lord’s field, the evil man
of whom the psalmist spoke, the unjust man named by Job; but especially
is he typified by the king of Assyria 18 (chap. VIII). Under his power, the
people suffer hunger and thirst (chap. VI), for they have lost part of their
substance in a far land, the earth of their captivity, and have not yet received
from God another part, which is charity (chap. V). In their exile they are
doubly tempted. God tempts them as a penalty for their having tempted
Him, but even more as a trial, because by enduring it they will prove them¬
selves worthy of the crown of life. Another temptation is by the devil, whose
temptation is unto death. It is from the devil’s temptation that the people
pray to be delivered.19 To help them, God has given them the examples of
the prophets and Christ, who was himself tempted by the devil (chap. VII).
Hearing the prayer of His people in exile, the Father commanded Christ
to go forth and dwell on earth. In that mission Christ was guilty of a sin
of will when He desired something other than the will of the Father;29
hence, He must sanctify himself and thereby sanctify the people for whom
He was to suffer (chap. II) after He was made flesh of the lineage of David
to redeem David and His children (chap. III). Christ endured without sin the
temptation of the devil (chap. VII) and illumined the people by revealing the
name of the Father (chap. Ill) and by teaching the commandments of the
New Testament, which are the will of the Father (chap. IV). Thus, He was a
“kingdom” which laid waste the four kingdoms of Babylon, a kingdom of
all time, preached by the saints. But as a kingdom, Christ will come again,
when He will render to all men their reward; vengeance will fall on unbe¬
lievers, while His elect will be gathered in to constitute the kingdom over
which Christ will reign. That second coming will be swift and terrible (chap.
III).
A further link between the Father and the people of God is through the
celestial substances. The charities are the first in rank and their influence
pervades all the others. Charity is the supersubstantial bread, that is, the part
of their substance which David and his children were unable to receive from
60. Catharist Church (Introduction) 595
the Father before the coming of Christ, Christ taught the people to pray for
the supersubstantial bread, which, when received, is a bond of perfection,
nay rather, perfection itself, allowing the people to become perfect before
God21 (chap. V). Indeed, the debt of the people from the beginning was to
practice mutual charity among themselves (chap. VI), for charity constitutes
the supreme bond and the fundamental force in fulfilling God’s will.
The visitations, the second of the celestial substances, are illumined by the
charities and are inspired to spread grace and mercy on the spirits beneath
them, for they are the children of the charities (chap. XI). The visitations are
symbolized by clouds suffused with the dew of charity, which drops upon the
spirits (chap. I). The name of God, invoked by the people in prayer, is a
visitation which must be hallowed because the people profaned it when they
were cast out among the nations; its equivalent is “Jacob,” who sanctifies
himself in order to sanctify “Israel,” which connotes the spirits of whom
Jacob is the head. The mountains through which peace and help come from
God and on which His city is built are also visitations. Visitations are formed
by the charities into ties of love which bind each substance to its superior,
bonds which are called Adam 22 (chap. II).
In their captivity, the people pray for God’s will to be done as it is ex¬
pressed in the New Testament and was fulfilled by Christ. It must be done
by the people because they are spirits, that is, heavenly; but it must also be
done by their lives and souls, that is, on earth (chap. IV). They also pray
that their debts be forgiven. Debts are sins, and the people acknowledge that
in order to be forgiven their own sins they must forgive those of others.
But “debts” also has a profounder meaning; the people from the first owed
the debt of charity and mutual love to each other, and this too they pray to
be able to discharge (chap. VI).
Of Catharist thought in this gloss on the Prayer there can be no doubt;
the inclusion of the phrase “supersubstantial bread” and the doxology in the
Lord’s Prayer, the theme of two creations, the description of the captivity
of “the people of God,” the equating of Christ with the kingdom of God
and evil with the devil, and the quotation from The Vision of Isaiah are
proof. But among what faction of the Cathars did it have currency? When
was it composed? Venckeleer feels certain that the doctrines of a radical
dualist group underlie the exposition because it contains references to the
devil’s power and uses citations from the Old Testament. More specifically,
he sees it as influenced by the ideas of John of Lugio.23 The correctness of
this interpretation is reinforced if references to “the first Moses” and to
David as “the first father” can be read as referring to existence on that other
earth where, as John of Lugio taught, the events of the Old Testament took
place.24 But there are some problems: The role of the Holy Spirit is only
briefly mentioned and not in the terms characteristic of Catharist teaching
as described in Catholic sources; the Catharist doctrine of the Fall, in which
the bodies and spirits of angels remained in heaven while their souls came
into the devil’s power, is not reflected here; nor is there any mention of the
596 Catharist Literature
Church of Christ as an assemblage of redeemed souls on earth and a trans¬
mitter of the Prayer.25 Thus, we feel that at the present stage of study, to
assign an exact provenance or date for the tract is too speculative.
The translation is made from the text published by Theo Venckeleer in
“Un Recueil cathare: Le manuscrit A.6.10 de la Collection vaudoise de
Dublin, I: Une Apologie; II: Une glose sur le Pater,” Revue beige de philo-
logie et d’histoire, XXXVIII (I960), 820-31; XXXIX (1961), 762-85, by
permission of the editor and the Librairie Falk Fils. We are deeply indebted
to Miss Joan Ferrante, who made the initial translation.

A. A VINDICATION OF THE CHURCH OF GOD

circa 1250

[Chapter I]
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
We propose to recount some testimony from Holy Scriptures in order
to give knowledge and understanding of the Church of God. This
Church is not made of stones or wood, or of anything made by hand,
for it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that “the Most High dwelleth
not in houses made by hands.”1 But this Holy Church is the assembly
of the faithful and of holy men in which Jesus Christ is and will be until
the end of the world, as our Lord says in the Gospel of St. Matthew,
“Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the
world.”2 And in the Gospel of St. John He says, “If anyone love me,
he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to
him and will make our abode with him.”3 And again He says: “If you
love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father and He
will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever:
the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him
not nor knoweth Him; but you shall know Him, because He shall abide
with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come
to you.”4 St. Paul speaks further of this Church to the Corinthians:
“Know you not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of
God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him
shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.”5 And
again he says, “Know you not that your members are the temple of the
Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?”6 And again he
says: “You are the temple of the living God, as God saith: ‘I will dwell
60. Catharist Church (Part A) 597
in them, and walk among them; I will go and be their God and they shall
be my people.’ Wherefore, ‘Go out from among them, and be ye sepa¬
rate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you and will be
a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord
Almighty.”’7 And again St. Paul says to Timothy: “These things I write
to thee hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that
thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of
God, which is the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and
mainstay of the truth.”8 And again he says to the Hebrews, “Christ is
as the Son in His own house, which house are we.”* But in the Gospel
of St. Matthew Christ says of this Church to St. Peter, “Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.”14 And St. Luke says in the Acts of the Apostles,
“Now the Church had peace throughout all Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria, and was edified, walking in the fear of the Lord, and was filled
with the consolation of the Holy Spirit.”11 And our Lord Jesus Christ
says in the Gospel of St. Matthew: “If thy brother shall offend against
thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. And if he shall
hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, take
with thee one or two more, that on the word of two or three witnesses
every word may stand. And if he will not hear them, tell the Church.
And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen
and the publican.”12 But the Church of Christ could not do all these
things if it were a house of the sort men call a church, for such houses
cannot walk, or hear, or speak. But St. Paul said to the Ephesians of
this Holy Church of the living God, “Christ so loved the Church that
He delivered himself up for it that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by
the laver of water, by the word of life, that He might present it to him¬
self a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing,
but that it should be holy and without blemish.” ** And this holy and
unblemished Church is the chamber of the Holy Spirit, as was shown
above, of whom Christ says, “For it is not you that speak but the Spirit
of your Father that speaketh in you.”14

[Chapter II]
This Church of God of which we speak has received such power from
our Lord Jesus Christ that sins are pardoned by its prayer, as Christ
says in the Gospel of St. John, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whose sins
598 Catharist Literature

you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall
retain, they are retained.”15 And St. Matthew says, “He gave them
power that they might cast out unclean spirits.”16 And St. Mark says,
“He gave diem power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils.”17 And
St. Luke says, “He gave them power over all devils.”18 And Christ [says]
in the Gospel of St. Matthew: “If your brother will not hear the Church,
let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. For I say to you
truly, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I
say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth about anything
whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is
in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered in my name, there
am I in the midst of them.”19 And St. Peter says in the Epistle, “Because
the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and His ears unto their
prayers.”20 And St. James says, “For the continuing prayer of a just man
availeth much.”21 And Christ says in the Gospel of St. Mark, “Therefore
I say unto you, all things whatsoever you ask when ye pray, believe that
you shall receive, and they shall come unto you.”22 And again He says:
“These signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast
out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. And they shall take up
serpents; and shall lay their hands upon the sick and they shall re¬
cover.”28 But for them who are sick with the sickness of sin, St. James
reveals the manner in which the infirmity of the soul must be healed,
saying: “If anyone among you is sick, let him bring in the priests of the
Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name
of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the
Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven
him.”24
And for these reasons and many others, it is manifest that only
through the prayers of the Holy Church of Christ are sins pardoned, as
Christ says, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and
whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”25 But if any be so blind
and mistaken as to think that He said that this power fell to and was
given only to the apostles, let him examine the Gospel of St. John where
Christ says, “O Father, not for them only do I pray, but for them also
who through their word shall believe in me, that they all may be one.”26
And again, Christ says in the Gospel of St. Matthew, “Behold, I am
with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”27 And again
60. Catharist Church (Part A) 599

He says, “This generation shall not pass, till all things be done.”28 For
these reasons, it is assured that the power which the Church of Christ
had, it holds and will hold until the end.

[Chapter III]
This Church refrains from killing, nor does it consent that others may
kill. For our Lord Jesus Christ says, “If thou wilt enter into life, thou
shalt do no murder.”29 And again He says: “You have heard that it was
said to them of old, ‘Thou shalt not kill/ For whosoever shall kill shall
be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whosoever is angry
with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment.”80 And St. Paul
says, “Thou shalt not kill.”81 And St. John says in his Epistle, “And
you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself.”32 And
he says in the Apocalypse that murderers are outside the holy city;88 and
again he says, “He that shall kill by the sword must be killed”;84 and
again he says that the portion of murderers “shall be in the pool burning
with fire and brimstone.”85 And St. Paul says to the Romans [about
those who are] “full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, and malignity:
Those who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that
do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”86

[Chapter IV]
This Church refrains from adultery and all uncleanness, for our Lord
Jesus Christ says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”87 And again He
says in the Gospel of Matthew: “You have heard that it was said to them
of old, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.* But I say to you that whosoever
shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery
with her in his heart.”88 And again He says: “From the heart come forth
evil thoughts, adulteries, and fornications. And these are the things that
defile a man.*’39 And in the Book of Proverbs40 it is written, “He that
is an adulterer, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul.” And
St. Paul says to the Ephesians,41 “Fornication and all uncleanness, let it
not be named among you.” And again he says, “And know this and
understand, that no fornicator or unclean or covetous person hath in¬
heritance in the kingdom of Christ.”42 And to the Galatians he says,
“The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness,
unchastity, luxury,”48 and so on. And again he says to the Corinthians:44
“Do not err: neither fornicators, nor the covetous, nor adulterers shall
600 Catharist Literature

possess the kingdom of God.” And again he says to the Hebrews, “For
the fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”45 And in the Apocalypse
it is written that the unchaste will be outside the holy city;46 and again
St. John says that the portion of the adulterer shall be “in the pool
burning with fire and brimstone, which is the [second] death.”47

[Chapter V]
This Church refrains from theft or robbery, for our Lord Jesus Christ
says in the Gospel of St. Matthew, “Thou shalt not steal.”48 And St.
Paul says to the Ephesians, “He that stole, let him now steal no more,
but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good,
that he may have something to give.”49 And again he says to the Ro¬
mans, “Thou shalt not steal nor covet anything of thy neighbor’s.”50
And St. Peter says in his Epistle, “Let none of you suffer as a murderer,
or a thief, or as a covetor of other men’s things.”51

[Chapter VI]
This Church refrains from lying and from bearing false witness, for
our Lord Jesus Christ says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”52 And
St. Peter says in the Epistle, “He that will love life and see good days,
let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no
guile.”53 And St. Paul says to the Romans, “Thou shalt not bear false
witness.”54 And again he says to the Ephesians, “Wherefore, putting
away lying, speak ye the truth, every man with his neighbor.”55 And in
the Apocalypse Christ says that there shall not enter the holy city
“anything defiled or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie.”56 And
again He says, that outside the holy city will remain “everyone who
loveth and maketh a lie.”57 And again He says that for all liars, their
portion will be “in the pool burning with fire.”58 And therefore St. Paul
says to the Colossians, “Lie not to one another.”59 And in the Book of
Wisdom is written, “The mouth that belieth killeth the soul.”60

[Chapter VII]
This Church refrains from oaths, for our Lord Jesus Christ says in
the Gospel of St. Matthew: “Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it
is the throne of God; nor by earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jeru¬
salem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by
thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.”61
60. Catharist Church (Part A) 601

Furthermore, after forbidding oaths, He teaches man how he should

speak, saying, “Let your speech be yea, yea; no, no,”®2 as if He were
saying: Let what you have in your heart sound in the mouth through
the word alone, without an oath. For Christ says that “that which is over
#

and above these is of evil,”®* meaning of the devil, who is called evil,
from whom we ask God in our prayers to set us free, saying, “But deliver
us from evil.”64 But contrary to these precepts, the wicked Roman
Church says and affirms that man should swear and it says that God
swore and the angels swore.®5 But for all of that, if they did swear, we
must not, for no law or commandment against oaths was given either to
God or to the angels, and St. Paul says that “where there is no law,
V

neither is there transgression.” ®* And therefore, man should not swear,

for he is commanded not to swear. For if a man swears, he will often
perjure himself, and it is67 manifest that more than a hundred thousand
perjuries have been committed by the wicked church. And therefore,
St. James the apostle, who had heard the truth from our Lord Jesus
Christ, says in his Epistle: “But above all things, my brethren, swear
not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath. But let
your speech be yea, yea; no, no, that you fall not under judgment.”®8
And therefore, the Church of Christ should not swear, for if it did, it
would transgress the law of Christ which says, “Swear not.”

[Chapter VIII]
This Church refrains from blasphemy and from cursing, for St. James
says, “If any man thinks himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue
from evil, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.”®9
And St. Paul says to the Ephesians, “Let no evil speech proceed from
your mouth And again he says Let all bitterness and anger, and
indignation, and clamor, and blasphemy be removed from you.”71 And
to the Colossians he says, “Now put you all away anger, and indigna¬
tion, and blasphemy, and filthy speech out of your mouth.”72 And St.
Peter says in his Epistle: “Render not evil for evil, but contrariwise,
blessing, for unto this are you called that you may inherit a blessing.
For he that will love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue
from evil and his lips that they speak no guile.”73 Jesus Christ said
further in the Gospel of St. Matthew: “But I say unto you truly that
every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it
in the Day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by
602 Catharist Literature

thy words thou shalt be condemned.”74 And because the righteous utter
blessings, when they are at the Day of Judgment they will be called
blessed. And the wicked ones who utter curses will be named the ac¬
cursed, as the Gospel of St. Matthew reveals: When Christ shall sit upon
the seat of his majesty, he will separate the evil from the good.75 And
Christ will say to the good, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you
the kingdom prepared for you,”76 and so on. And to the wicked He will
say, “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire.”77

[Chapter IX]
This Church keeps and observes all the commandments of the law of
life, for St. James says in his Epistle: “Whosoever shall keep the whole
law but offend in one point, is become guilty of all. For He that said,
‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Now if
thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a trans¬
gressor of the law.”78 And Christ says, “Either make the tree good and
its fruit good, or make the tree evil and its fruit evil.”79 And therefore
the Church of God desires all its fruit to be good, so that it may be like
its good teacher and pastor, Jesus Christ, for all that which He taught
to others He first did and fulfilled in His works, so that if anyone does
not wish to believe in Him through His words, he may believe through
His good works. Of this He says in the Gospel of St. John, “If you are
not willing to believe the words, believe the works.”80 Therefore St.
Peter says, “Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that we may
follow in His steps, ‘Who did not sin, neither was guile found in His
mouth.’”81 Thus the Holy Church of God, which is called the body of
Christ, seeks to follow its head, who is Jesus Christ. Whence St. Paul
u
says: All things are subjected under the feet of Christ, and Him He
gave as head over all the Church, which is His body”;82 and again, “You
are the body of Christ”;83 and again, “Your bodies are the members of
Christ,”84 and so on. Thus, since righteous Christians are members of
Christ, it behooves them to be holy, pure, and chaste, and soiled with no
sin even as their head, Jesus Christ, for St. John says, “Whosoever
abideth in Him sinneth not, and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen Him
nor known Him.”85 And again he says, “He who says that he abides in
Him, ought himself also to walk just as He walked.”86 And again he
says: “If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in dark¬
ness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as He also
60. Catharist Church (Part A ) 603

is in the light, we have fellowship with Him.”87 Therefore, he says, “He

that doth justice is just, even as He is just.”88

[Chapter X]
This Church suffers persecutions and tribulations and martyrdom in
the name of Christ, for He himself suffered them in the desire to redeem
and save His Church and to show them by deed and word that until the
end of the world they must suffer persecution and contumely and male-
.

diction,89 just as He says in the Gospel of St. John, “If they have per¬
secuted me, they will persecute you.”90 And in the Gospel of St. Mat¬
thew He says: “Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they shall revile
you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly,
for my sake. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven.
For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”91 And
again He says: “Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves”;92
and again, “And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake; he
that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. And when they shall
persecute you in this city, flee into another.”93
Note how all these words of Christ contradict the wicked Roman
Church. For it is not persecuted for the goodness or justice which is in
it, but on the contrary it persecutes and kills all who refuse to condone
its sins and its actions. It flees not from city to city, but rules over cities
and towns and provinces and is seated in grandeur in the pomp of this
world; it is feared by kings and emperors and other men. Nor is it like
sheep among wolves, but rather like wolves among sheep or goats, for
it endeavors to rule over pagans and Jews and Gentiles. And above all
does it persecute and kill the Holy Church of Christ, which bears all in
patience like the sheep, making no defense against the wolf. Therefore
St. Paul says: “For Thy sake we are put to death all the day long. We
are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”94 But in contrast to this, the
shepherds of the Roman Church feel no shame in saying that they are
the sheep and lambs of Christ, and they declare that the wolves are the
Church of Christ, which is persecuted by them. But this is a contradic¬
tion, for in times past the wolves persecuted and killed the sheep; now
all would be reversed, for the sheep are to be so enraged that they bite
and persecute and kill the wolves. And the wolves are to be so patient
that they let themselves be devoured by the sheep. But the Roman
604 Catharist Literature

Church says further, “We do not persecute heretics for their good works
but for faith, because they refuse to accept our faith.” Note how they
seem to be the sons of those who killed Christ and the apostles, for they
have killed and persecuted and will do so until the end, because the
saints speak out against their sins, and preach to them the truth which
they cannot understand. Whence Christ in the Gospel of St. John says
to them: “Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for
which of these works do you stone me?”95 And they answered Him,
“For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy.”96 Thus it is
manifest that from the beginning of the world the wolves killed and
persecuted the sheep, and the wicked persecuted the good, and sinners
persecuted the saints. And therefore St. Paul says, “All that will live
godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”97 Note that he did not
say “shall persecute” but “shall suffer persecution.” And Jesus Christ in
the Gospel of St. John says to His Holy Church, “The hour cometh that
whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God.”98 Note
that He did not say, “The hour cometh for you to persecute and kill men
and offer worship to God.” And again the good Jesus Christ says to
persecutors, “Behold, I send you scribes and wise men, and you will put
them to death and crucify them and scourge them and persecute them
from city to city.”99 And in the Acts of the Apostles, the apostles said,
“For through many tribulations and persecutions we must enter into the
kingdom of heaven.”100 And therefore St. John the apostle says,
“Wonder not, brethren, if the world hate you.”101

[Chapter XI]
This Church performs a holy spiritual baptism, which is the imposi¬
tion of hands through which is given the Holy Spirit,102 of which John
the Baptist says, “He that shall come after me shall baptize you in the
Holy Spirit.”103 And therefore, when our Lord Jesus Christ came from
the seat of His grandeur to save His people, He taught His Holy Church
to baptize others with this holy baptism, just as He says in the Gospel
of St. Matthew, “Go and teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”104 And in
the Gospel of St. Mark He says to them: “Go ye into the whole world
and preach the gospel to every creature. And he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”105
But the wicked Roman Church, like the blind leading the blind, says
60. Catharist Church (Part A) 605

that Christ referred to temporal water, which John the Baptist used
before Christ preached. This can be refuted on many counts. For, if the
baptism which the Roman Church performs were that which Christ
ordained for His Church, then almost all of those who are baptized by
0

them will be condemned. For Christ says, “He that believeth not will be
condemned.”10* And they baptize little children who do not believe and
who have no knowledge of good and evil; thus by their words do they
condemn them. Furthermore, if people are saved by the baptism of
temporal water, then in vain did Christ come to die, for they already
had the baptism of water. But it is certain that the Church of Christ
baptized with a baptism other than that of John the Baptist, as St. John
the Evangelist reveals when he says, “But when Jesus understood that
the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples and baptizeth
more than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but His
disciples),”107 and so on. And John the Baptist himself clearly showed
this, saying, “I have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you
with the Holy Spirit.”108 Now, John had come to baptize with water
only to lead people to believe in the baptism of Christ, and to give firm
testimony of Christ, whose coming he preached, for upon none of all
those whom John baptized was the Holy Spirit to come except upon
Jesus; whereby John knew that He was the Christ who would baptize
with the Holy Spirit. For otherwise John knew not who Christ was, as he
discloses in the Gospel of St. John, saying, “And I knew Him not, but
that He may be made manifest in Israel; therefore am I come baptizing
with water. For I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven,
and He remained upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He who sent me
to baptize with water said to me, ‘He upon whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending, and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with
the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son
of God.”100 And therefore John baptized, for, baptizing in water, he
must recognize Christ, in order to show the people that it was He who
would perform the other baptism. But St. Paul showed that of these two
baptisms only one was unto salvation, for he says, “One faith, one Lord,
baptism and so on. And St. Luke declares in the Acts of the
Apostles which baptism it is that the Church of God performs, and
shows clearly that baptism of water was little valued, saying: “When
Paul came to Ephesus, he found certain disciples and asked them if they
M

had received the Holy Spirit when they became believers. And they said
606 Catharist Literature
to him, ‘We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Spirit.’
And Paul said to them, ‘In what then were you baptized?’ And they
said, ‘In John’s baptism.’ And Paul said to them, ‘John baptized the
people with the baptism of penance, saying that they should believe in
Him who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ Having heard these
things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when
Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon
them.”111 Note that if these, who were men of mature age, having belief
in their hearts and knowing good from evil, did not receive the Holy
Spirit through the baptism of water, then it is not to be credited that
thereby little children, who do not have belief in their hearts nor knowl¬
edge of good and evil, can receive it. Furthermore, St. Luke proves this
argument again, saying: “When the apostles who were in Jerusalem had
heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them
Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they
might receive the Holy Spirit. For He was not as yet come upon any of
them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then
the apostles laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy
Spirit.”112 And St. Paul says to Timothy, whom he had baptized with
this holy baptism, “I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God
which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.”113 And thus did
Ananias baptize St. Paul.114 And one finds that many others who were
not apostles performed this holy baptism just as they had received it
from the Holy Church, for the Church of Christ has kept it uninter¬
ruptedly and will keep it until the end, as Christ says to them: “Baptize
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
And behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the
world.”118 And St. Peter shows clearly that one cannot be saved without
that baptism, saying, “As in the days of Noah a few, that is, eight souls,
were saved by the ark, the like form, baptism, saveth you,”116 and so
on. Hence, no man is saved who is not baptized with this baptism, just
as all those who were outside the ark were drowned in the flood, for he
says, “Its like form, baptism, saveth you,” and so on.
Let this be enough about baptism.117
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 607
B. A GLOSS ON THE LORD’S PRAYER

Thirteenth or Fourteenth Century (?)

[Prologue]
... even as He revealed through the prophet Jeremiah, saying: “Be¬
hold, I will bring them from the north country, and will gather them
from the ends of the earth.1 They shall come with weeping and I will
bring them back in prayer.”2 And again: “When the seventy years shall
begin to be accomplished,” He said, “I will visit you, and I will perform
my good word in your favor, to bring you again to this place. And you
shall call upon me, and you shall go and you shall pray to me and I will
hear you. You shall seek me and shall find me. And I will bring back
your captivity and I will gather you out of all nations and from all the
places to which I have driven you out, saith the Lord.”8 And therefore
our Lord Jesus Christ was sent by the Lord to seek that people which
had been driven out and to save them, as Jesus Christ says in the
Gospel: “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was
lost.”4 And, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, when He had come from
the seat of grandeur to seek and to save that people, to lead it forth
from the land of the enemy, as was said above, spoke5 to that people.
Whence, He says in the Gospel: “Amen, amen, I say to you that you
shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be
made sorrowful”;8 and again, “They ought always to pray and not to
faint”;7 and once more, “Watch ye and pray that ye enter not into
temptation.”8 And therefore He teaches us to pray in this way.

[Chapter I]
Our Father who art in heaven*—[He is] the Holy Father in whose
sight our prayer is addressed as incense, as the psalmist David says: “O
Lord, let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy sight.”10 He is the
Father of lights, that is, of charities, as St. James says in the Epistle:
Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down
44

from the Father of lights.”11 This is the perfect [gift], of which the
Apostle says to the Corinthians, “But when that which is perfect has
come, that which is in part will be done away with.”12 And He is the
Father of mercies, that is, of visitations, as the Apostle says to the
Corinthians, “Blessed be the God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of mercies,”13 The Psalmist speaks further of these mercies,
 608 Catharist Literature

saying, “They confess unto the Lord His mercies.”14 And He is also the
Father of spirits, as St. Paul says to the Hebrews, “When we shall much
more obey the Father of spirits and live.”1* Therefore was the Savior
first sent to give penance, for they had been seen,16 and that very Spirit
who is a sign of the Lord himself [was sent] to keep the commandments
of the Gospel and to say this prayer.
And again, it should be known that the Lord who is the Father of
lights and of mercies—that is, of charities and visitations—and [the
Father] of spirits is also the Father of all other substances, to wit, lives,
souls, hearts, and bodies, for so St. Paul bore witness, saying, “All
paternity is named, which is one God and Father of all things.”17 And
He dwells in the heavens, as the psalmist says: “To Thee have I lifted
up my eyes, who dwellest in heaven.”18 But these heavens in which our
Father dwells are charities. And He is charity as well, as St. John says:
“God is charity,”19 And again, that same Father who dwells in the
heavens is He from whom our Lord Jesus Christ came forth and,
sustaining Himself in Him, dwelt on earth, as the psalmist says: “His
going out is from the end of heaven.”20 And He, the Lord, says in the
*

Gospel, “I came out from God [and] am come.”21 And again, “I came
forth from the Father and am come into the world.”22 Furthermore, our
Lord dwelt in that same heaven, as He says in the Gospel: “No man
hath ascended into heaven but He that descended from heaven, the Son
of man, who is in heaven”;22 and so is the Father from whom the Son
of God came forth and who dwells in the heavens. Therefore, He says
later, “Do you not believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father?”24
And again, He says, “That you may know that the Father is in me and
I in the Father.”25 It should be understood that just as the Holy Father
is in the heavens, so the Son is in all of us, as the Apostle tells the
Ephesians, “One God, Father of all things, who is above all, and
through all, and in us all.”26 So also the Son is not only in the Father
but in us too, and in all things that are in Him and of Him, as St. Paul
says to the Romans: “For of Him and by Him and in Him are all things.
To Him be glory forever.”27 And in the Acts of the Apostles he says,
“For in Him we live and move and are.”28 And the Lord says in the
Gospel, “And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who
through their word shall believe in me, that they all may be one, as
thou, Father, in me and I in Thee; that they also may be one in us.”26
And again, it should be known that all the heavens in which our
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 609

Father dwells, to wit, the charities, are in the seventh heaven, as the
angel teaches the prophet Isaiah and tells him in his vision: “Here there
are neither thrones nor angels of the left, but they receive their direction
from the virtue of the seventh heaven, where dwells the powerful Son of
God; and all the heavens [and His angels hearken to Him].”30 And
further, the heavens, the charities, spread their grace thence over the
clouds, that is, over the visitations; and they, thus moistened by the dew
of love, spread their rain, meaning their benediction, over the earth,
the spirits; and thus those spirits, moistened by the blessing of the visita¬
tions, bud forth the Savior in His substances, even as the prophet Isaiah
says: “Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain
the just; let the earth be opened and bud forth the savior.”31 Thus the
spirit of our first form,33 when he speaks of the moistening of his head,
%

that is, of his visitation, says in the Canticle of Canticles, “Open to me,
my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled, for my head is full of
dew,”33 meaning of mercy, for his visitation, which is his head, had
received and found grace and mercy from his charity. But his hair was
filled with droplets from the clouds—that is, with the ministering spirits
serving their head, which is his visitation, were filled with filth, strange
charities, which are called night, as our charities are called lights, even
as St. James says: “Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above,
coming down from the Father of lights,”34 meaning the Father of the
charities which are the lights of the visitations, for they illumine. But
those visitations are the clouds which, when they had received the
celestial dew raining the just, presented Him in the sight of the Ancient
of Days, as the prophet Daniel tells, saying, “I beheld therefore in the
vision of the night, and lo, one like the Son of man came with the
clouds of heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of Days, and they
presented Him before Him.”35 And St. John, referring to those clouds,
says, “Behold, He cometh with the clouds of heaven,”30 that is, with the
visitations of the Father. And the psalmist, speaking of our Lord and of
the aforesaid clouds, says, “And His power is in the clouds,”37 and
so on.

Chapter II
Hallowed be thy name.—This people in offering this prayer to the
Lord profanes the name of its God amid the nations whither they went,38
as the Lord says through the prophet Ezechiel: “It is not for your sake
610 Catharist Literature

that I will make the house of Israel, but for my holy name’s sake, which
&

you have profaned among the nations whither you went.”39 And this
holy name was blasphemed by this people among the nations, as the
Apostle says to the Romans: “For the name of God is blasphemed
through you among the Gentiles, as it is written.”40 Therefore, this
people first asks of its God that He sanctify His name, which has been
defiled among them, so that they may be sanctified. Thus the Lord
heard their prayers before they cried to him, as He says through the
prophet Isaiah: “Before they call, I will hear; as they are yet speaking,
I will hear.”41 Of the sanctification of His name and also of His people,
the Lord says through the prophet Ezechiel: “I will sanctify my great
name, which was profaned among the Gentiles, which you have pro¬
faned in the midst of them, that the Gentiles may know that I am the
Lord, when I shall be sanctified in you before them. I will take you
s

from among the Gentiles,”42 and so on. But this name which was
profaned by the people is the visitation of the Father, which sinned in
will and not by profanation; but the congregation of visitations is called
the Son of God. Thus the first Moses says, “They have sinned against
Him and are none of his children in their filth.”43 But these visitations
had first to be sanctified, for they sinned only in will, even as the Son
of God, who was a visitation, desired something other than did His
Father, as He says in the Gospel: “My Father, if it be possible, let this
chalice pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt”;44
and again, “Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from me; but yet
not my will but Thine be done.”45 Thus, that Son of God sanctified
himself so that He might then sanctify the people of God, as He says
in the Gospel, “For them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be
sanctified in truth.”46 And one should know that our Lord Jesus Christ
not only sanctified himself for the sanctification of the people, but suf¬
fered for it, as St. Paul says to the Hebrews: “Wherefore Jesus also, that
He might sanctify the people, suffered outside the gate.”47
But it should be known further that the name of the Father, that is,
the visitation which is sanctified by the Father, is called Jacob, while
the spirit subject to him is called Israel; therefore, the Lord, wishing to
sanctify His name, the visitation which is the head of the other visita¬
tions which sinned in will, the one which is also called Jacob, sent His
word first to him, not that he should do penance, for the gifts and the
call of God are without repentance, and also sin was not imputed to
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 611

him by the Lord, as the Apostle says to the Romans: “Blessed is the
man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.”48 And again he says,
“[For the gifts arid the call of God] are without repentance,”49 and so
on. But the Lord, therefore, sent His word first to Jacob so that the
word might fall in Israel, that from the visitation it might fall upon the
spirit, Israel, which is the head of the other spirits which sinned. Thus,
the prophet Isaiah says, “The Lord sent his word into Jacob, and it hath
lighted upon Israel.”50 Thereby Jacob, the visitation, rejoiced when he
received the grace and mercy of God; and Israel, the spirit, was glad in
his joy, as the psalmist says: “Who shall give out of Zion the salvation
of Israel? When the Lord shall have turned away the captivity of His
people, Jacob shall rejoice and Israel shall be glad.”51 But this is the
holy Jacob, who is the sanctifier of his sons by prayer to the God of
Israel, as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah: “Jacob shall not
now be confounded, neither shall his countenance now be ashamed; but
when he shall see his children, the work of my hands in the midst of
him sanctifying my name, and they shall sanctify the Holy [One of]
Jacob and shall glorify the God of Israel.”52 It should be known further
that these visitations which are called by the name of Jacob are those
mountains that must receive the sowing of the Lord in order to bear
fruit to the people of Israel, that is, to the spirit, as the Lord says
through the prophet Ezechiel: “But as for you, O mountains of Israel,
shoot ye forth your branches that ye may yield your fruit to my people
Israel. And you shall be plowed and sown. And I will multiply men
upon you, and all the house of Israel.”53 And speaking of those moun¬
tains and praying for the peace of Israel, the psalmist says, “Let the
mountains receive peace for the people.”54 Thus, the prophet raised his
eyes to those mountains, for his helper was to come from them, even as
he says: “I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help
shall come to me.”55 But the City of God is founded on these moun¬
tains, even as that prophet says: “The foundations thereof are in the
holy mountains.”58
And again, one should know that our Lord, wishing to draw His
people to Him—for Truth says in the Gospel, “No man can come to me
except the Father draw him”57—commanded Jacob, the visitation, to
draw Israel, the spirit, to him. For Jacob is the cord by which Israel is
bound and drawn, as the first Moses says. He says, “Jacob, the cord of
his inheritance”;58 of which inheritance the Lord says through the
612 Catharist Literature

prophet Isaiah, “But Israel is my inheritance.”59 Therefore, the Lord

says through the prophet Osee, “I will draw them with the bonds of
Adam, with the cords of love.”60 For charity is called Adam, and is
“the bond of perfection,” as St. Paul says.61 And he [Jacob] has his own
bonds, his cords, which are the charities, by which he binds and draws
the spirit to himself. Even so, the visitation is the cord of charity, by
which it draws the spirit to itself. And it is also the cord of the spirit, by
which the spirit itself is bound and drawn up, as was said above. The
Lord himself, through the prophet David, says further of those cords,
the visitations which had fallen in the inheritance of the God of Israel,
“The lines are fallen unto me in goodly places, for my inheritance is
goodly to me.”62 Again, it should be known that the strange visitations
are also called cords and bonds, as the psalmist, the spirit of the first
form, says, “They have stretched my cords for a snare.”63 And again
he says, “The cords of the wicked have encompassed me.”84 And that
same prophet, giving thanks to his Lord that He hath broken those
aforesaid cords, says: “O Lord, Thou hast broken my bonds. I will
sacrifice to Thee the sacrifice of praise.”65 And speaking of these bonds,
the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah, “Woe to you that draw in¬
iquity with cords of vanity, and sin as the rope of the cart.”66 And again,
it should be known that the spirit is the cord of life which draws and
binds the life. It binds, as St. Paul, personifying his life, says in the Acts
of the Apostles. He says, “And now behold, being bound in the spirit,
I go to Jerusalem.”67 Moreover, the life is the cord of the soul which,
aided by the visitation, draws and joins the soul to itself. Thus David,
praising God for his joining and for his life, says, “Who hath set my
soul to life.”68

[Chapter III]
Thy kingdom come.—This kingdom, for whose coming this people
prays to its Father, is the son of David, who is the Son of God, our
Lord Jesus Christ, as St. Mark says in the Gospel: “And they that went
before, and they that followed, cried, saying, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord! Blessed be the kingdom of our
father David that cometh!’”69 But this is the kingdom which the God
of heaven must set up in order to lay waste the four kingdoms of Ba¬
bylon, but which will not be laid waste but will stand forever. This
kingdom will not be delivered up to another people, as Daniel the
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 613

prophet shows, saying: “But in the days of those kingdoms the God of
heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed and His
kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break
in pieces and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand
forever.”70 This kingdom is the kingdom of all time, whose glory and
grandeur the saints of God will preach and make known to the sons of
men, as David says, speaking to his God: “Let all thy works, O Lord,
praise Thee and let Thy saints bless Thee, and they shall speak of the
glory of Thy kingdom and shall tell of Thy power, and the glory of the
magnificence of Thy kingdom. Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages.”71
But this kingdom, which is the Son of God, made His brethren a king¬
dom and priests to His God, as St. John says in the Apocalypse, “John,
to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace be unto you and peace
from Him that is and that was and that is to come; from Jesus Christ,
who hath loved us, and hath made us a kingdom and priests to God
His Father.”7* In the same way, the same St. John says of the four living
creatures and the twenty-four elders, “And when he had opened the
book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders fell down
before the Lamb, saying, “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book,
for Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall
reign on the earth.”73 And therefore David, calling those very created
kingdoms to our God, says, “Sing ye to God, ye kingdoms of earth;
rejoice in the Lord.”74 But it should be known that even if this kingdom
came once to illumine those existing in darkness and in the shadow of
death, and to teach [His] brethren and declare the name of His Father
to them, even as He says, “I will declare Thy name to my brethren,”75
it is necessary for Him to come here again with His angels and with His
power, with the flame of fire, dispensing vengeance to those who did
not know God and did not believe in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ, in order that “He might be made great in His act and honorable
in all those who believed,”70 as St. Paul says to the Thessalonians, and
in order to save and “gather His elect from the four winds, from the
farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them,”77 as is
written in the Gospel, and in order to render to each according to his
works, even as He says in the Apocalypse: “Behold, I come quickly.
And my reward is with me to render to every man according to his
works.”78 And in the same way, He must come here so that when He
comes and descends from heaven with commandment and with the
614 Catharist Literature

power of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, His friends may
be taken up toward him into the air, to be with Him always, as St. Paul
tells the Thessalonians, saying: “And we will not have you ignorant,
brethren, concerning them that are asleep, that you be not sorrowful,
even as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and
rose again, even so them who have slept through Jesus will God bring
with Him. For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we
who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not pre¬
cede those who have slept. For the Lord himself shall come down from
heaven with commandment and with the voice of the archangel, and
with the trumpet of God; and the dead who are in Christ shall rise first.
Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with
them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always
with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort ye one another with these words.”79
Moreover, that the redemption of this people was at hand and the
coming of this kingdom, the Lord shows in the Gospel, saying: “They
will see the Son of man coming upon the clouds of heaven with much
power and glory.80 And he shall send His angels and they shall gather
together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of earth
to the farthest parts of heaven.”81 Therefore, this people, most con¬
cerned about the coming of its Lord, asks Him secretly, as the evangelist
discloses, “Tell us, when shall these things be, and what shall be the
sign of Thy coming and of the consummation of the world?”82 For this
people hopes to receive its reward and its salvation from the Lord at
His coming, as was said above and as St. Paul says to the Romans, that
“He will render to every man according to his works. To them who,
according to patience in good works, seek glory and honor and incor¬
ruption, eternal life; but to them that are contentious and who obey not
the truth but iniquity, wrath and indignation and tribulation and anguish;
but glory, honor, and peace to all who do good.”83 Therefore David,
inspired by the Holy Spirit, praying for the coming of that Lord, says:
“Give ear, O Thou that rulest Israel; Thou that leadest Joseph like a
sheep. Stir up Thy might and come to save us.”84 And St. John, recalling
this prayer in the Apocalypse, says, “And the bridegroom and bride say,
‘Come!’ and he that heareth, let him say, ‘Come!’”85 And the same St.
John, uttering this prayer, says, “Come, O Lord.”86 Therefore, the Lord
himself, speaking for the comfort of this people, says in the Apocalypse,
“Behold, I come quickly; hold fast that which thou hast”;87 and again,
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 615

“Behold, I come quickly. And my reward is with me, to render to every

man according to his works.”88 And St. James says that “the coming of
the Lord is at hand.”88 And St. Paul says to the Hebrews, “Yet a very
little while and He that is to come will come, and will not delay. ”80
The kingdom mentioned above by our father David, that is, our Lord
Jesus Christ, therefore came thus. And again He must come here in
order that He, sitting upon the kingdom of His father David, may con¬
firm it in judgment and in justice from henceforth and forever, as He
says through the prophet Isaiah,81 and so that, established by His Father
over all principalities and powers and virtues and dominations that were
made by Him and of which He is the chief, He might do away with
every power and principality, virtue and domination, despoiling them;
and at His coming they will praise God and the Father, as St. Paul tells
the Ephesians, saying, “And setting Him at his right hand in the
heavenly places, above all principality and power and virtue and domi¬
nation.”88 And to the Colossians he says, “For in Him were all things
created in heaven and visible on earth, whether thrones or dominations
or principalities or powers.”88 And he says to the Colossians, “Despoil¬
ing the principalities and powers, He hath exposed them in open show,
triumphing over them in himself.”84 But of this end, the Lord himself
says in the Apocalypse, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
end.”88 Even so Malachi the prophet speaks of the coming of this Lord
and of the work that He must accomplish at Ms coming, saying: “And
presently the Lord whom you seek, and the angel of the testament whom
you desire, shall come to His holy temple. Behold, He cometh, saith the
Lord of hosts. And who shall be able to think of the day of His coming?
And who shall stand to see Him? For He is like a refining fire and like
the fuller’s herb.”88 Moreover, it is said that our Lord Jesus Christ will
come soon and will not delay, because some “scoffers, men walking
according to their own lusts,” as St. Peter says in the Epistle, doubting
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and not knowing in what way or
when He is to come, say, “Where is His promise or His coming? For
since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were
from the beginning of creation.”87
But the way in which this blessed kingdom of our father David, which
is the Son of God, will come and what the sign of His coming will be He
himself reveals in the Gospel, saying: “And immediately after the tribu¬
lation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not
616 Catharist Literature

give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of
heaven shall be moved. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of earth mourn, and they
shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much
power and majesty. And as in the days of Noah, so shall also the coming
of the Son of man be.”98 And again, “Thus will He sit on the seat of
His majesty; and all nations shall be gathered together before Him,”99
and so on. And St. John says in the Apocalypse, “Behold, He cometh
with the clouds of heaven, and every eye shall see Him, and they also
that pierced Him. And all the tribes of earth truly.”100 And St. Peter
speaks of this Lord who says in the Apocalypse, “Behold, I come as a
thief”;101 which Lord is the day of the Holy Father and we are of this
day, as St. Paul says: “For you are all children of the light and children
of the day; but let us who are of the day be sober.”102 St. Peter says in
the Epistle that “the day of the Lord shall come as a thief”;103 and St.
Paul says to the Thessalonians, “For you know that the day of the Lord
shall so come as a thief in the night.”104 Therefore, the people of the
Lord, hoping for His promise, pray the Holy Father that He come here
to His kingdom in order to accomplish the things we have discussed.

[Chapter IV]
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.—This people, having
prayed to the Father for the sanctification of His name and for the
coming of His kingdom, prays further to its Father for His will to be
done on earth as in heaven. But St. Paul reveals to the Thessalonians
what the will of God is which must be done on earth as it is in heaven,
saying: “This is the will of God: that you should abstain from fornica¬
tion; that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in
sanctification and honor and not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles
that know not God; and that no man deceive and overreach his brother
in business, because the Lord is the avenger of all these things. Rebuke
the unquiet, comfort the fainthearted, receive the weak, be patient
toward all men; and see that none render evil for evil to any man; but
ever follow that which is good toward each other and toward all men.
Rejoice now in the Lord, pray without ceasing. In all things give thanks;
for this is the will of God in Christ regarding you all.”105 And because
the Father “worketh all things according to the counsel of His will,”106
as St. Paul says to the Ephesians, His Son descends from heaven to do
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 617
His will and to teach His brethren what the will of the Father is, as He
reveals in the Gospel, saying: “Because I came down from heaven, not
to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me. Now this is the will
of the Father who sent me, that of all that the Father hath given me I
should lose nothing, but should raise it up on the Last Day. For this is
the will of my Father that sent me, that everyone who seeth the Son,
and believeth in Him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up
in the Last Day.”107 And therefore the Apostle prays his brethren to
understand and try what the will of God is, good, well-pleasing, and
perfect,108 and on their behalf he also prays God to fit them with all
goodness so that they may do His will. And to the Hebrews he says,
“God fit you in all goodness to do his will, doing in you that which is
well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ.”100 And it should be
known that the Holy Father to whom this people prays is the Father of
heaven and of that earth in which His will must be done, as well of one
as of the other, as our Lord reveals in the Gospel, saying, “I confess to
thee, Lord of heaven and earth.”110 And that heaven is the spirit, for
the spirit is called heaven. The visitation and the charity are also called
heavens, as is written in the book of Jesus [the son of] Sirach, “Behold,
the heaven and the heaven of heavens shall be moved in His sight, and
when God shall look upon them, they shall be shaken with trembling.”111
But the earth in which the will of God must be done is the earth of the
life which is under the power of heaven, that is, of the spirit. Therefore,
this people, that is, the congregation of the spirits, prays that the merci¬
ful Lord may show mercy unto them as to their lives, and may sanctify
them, so that the Lord may work in the life as He works in the spirit.
Therefore, the psalmist, who is the spirit of the first form, forseeing in
the spirit the mercy of the Lord which was to come upon the lives,
promises and declares that he will praise and bless God in his life, say¬
ing, “For thy mercy is better than lives; Thee my lips shall praise, and
thus will I bless Thee in my life.”112 But then that same prophet, praying
for the salvation of his soul, says, “O Lord, be Thou merciful to me;
heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.”118 And again he says,
“O Lord, deliver my soul from wicked lips and a deceitful tongue.”114
But that same prophet knew that his prayer had been heard by God,
that is, that the Lord had been good to his soul and had delivered it
from death, as he shows, saying, “Turn, O my soul, into thy rest, for the
Lord has been bountiful to thee.”115 And he invites that same soul to
618 Catharist Literature

the praise of his Lord God; and he declares also that he will praise that
Lord in his life, saying, “Praise the Lord, O my soul; in my life I will
praise the Lord; I will rejoice to my God as long as I shall be.”116 That
same prophet invites his soul to bless his Lord because He had redeemed
its life from death, saying, “Bless the Lord, O my soul, who redeemeth
thy life from death.”117 And thus these three substances, that is, the
spirit and the life and the soul, when they have received grace and mercy
from their Father, are led with one mouth to praise and bless and rejoice
in the Lord.

[Chapter V]
Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.118—This afore-mentioned
people, making this prayer to its Father, is a bread, as St. Paul reveals
to the Corinthians, saying, “For we are all one bread and one body, and
we all partake of the one bread and of one cup.”119 And since this
people has long hungered and thirsted, as the prophet David says, “They
were hungry and thirsty; their soul fainted in them,”120 they sought
bread for a long time and there was no one to make it for them, as says
the prophet Jeremiah, “The little ones have asked for bread and there
was none to break it unto them.”121 Therefore, the Lord “hath remem¬
bered his mercy toward the house of Israel,” as the psalmist says,122 and
as the Blessed Mary says, “He has filled the hungry with good things
and the rich He has sent empty away.”123 He gave them that bread of
which the Lord speaks in the Gospel, “I am the living bread which
came down from heaven,”124 just as Isaiah, speaking of that Son of God
who was given to this people, reveals when he says, “A child is given to
us and a son is born to us.”125 But when this living bread, one bread
and one body, descends from heaven and is given to this people afore¬
said, He teaches them to seek still other bread from the Father, the
supersubstantial bread, which is charity. For charity is called super-
substantial bread because it is above all other substances, that is, above
visitation, spirit, life, soul, heart, body; and all these substances are
sustained by that bread, as the Apostle tells the Corinthians, saying,
“Charity is patient, kind; charity beareth all things, believeth all things,
hopeth all things, and sustaineth all things.”126 But this charity which
sustains all things, as St. Paul says, even so preserves and sustains the
visitation, and the visitation, with the aid of charity, preserves and
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 619
hast granted me life and mercy, and Thy visitation has preserved my
spirit.”127 And the spirit sustains and preserves the life, as is written in
the parables of Solomon, “The spirit of a man upholdeth his infir¬
mity.”128 And the Apostle, personifying the life, says to the Romans,
“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity.”120 And the life sustains
and preserves the soul. And the soul, turned to its rest, preserves the
heart, which heart sustains the body. Thus, each of these substances is
preserved by its superior with the aid of charity.
But the psalmist, who by luxurious living in a far country had wasted
not all his substance but that part belonging to him which he had
received from his Father, addressing his Father in regard to his sub¬
stance, that is, charity, which as yet he had not received from the
Father, says, “My substance is with Thee”;180 and again, referring to
the substance which he had lost, meaning the life and the soul, he says,
“My substance is in the lower parts of the earth.”181 And therefore that
psalmist, who had lost one substance and was unable to have the other,
cried to his God, saying, “Save me, O God, for the waters are come in
even unto my soul. I stick fast in the mire of the earth and there is no
substance.”182 Thus spoke that prophet who is our father and the servant
of our God, as said the apostles, confessing to God in the Acts of the
Apostles, “O Lord God, who didst make heaven and earth and the sea
and all things that are in them, who, by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth
of our father David, thy servant, hast said,”133 and so on. And he was
found imperfect in the sight of his God, as he says, “Lord, Thy eyes
did see my imperfect being”;134 and again, “I am brought to nothing
and I knew not.”135 Therefore, our Lord, who is made of his seed be¬
come flesh, descends to the lowest parts of the earth, as the Apostle tells
the Ephesians: “Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also
descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is
the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fulfill
ail things.”136
Thus, the God of all grace commanded His beloved Son [to bring]
the gift of charity to David187 and the people, to perfect, to strengthen,
and to establish, as St. Peter reveals in his Epistle and says, “But the
God of all grace, who hath called us after a little suffering into His
eternal glory in Jesus Christ, He himself will perfect, confirm, and
establish.”138 Therefore, that people asks its Father that He give it the
supersubstantial bread, which is charity, this day, that is, in Him, Christ,
620 Catharist Literature

who is that day of ours of which the psalmist speaks: “This is the day
which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice therein”;139 and says again,
“Day to day uttereth speech”140—that is, the Father reveals the word
to the Son, as our Lord himself shows in the Gospel when he says, “For
I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me, He gave me
commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. And I
know that His commandment is life everlasting. The things, therefore,
that I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so do I speak.”141
And the Apostle, referring to that day, says to the Romans, “The night
is passed and the day is at hand”;142 and again, to the Hebrews he dis¬
closes that the Holy Spirit sends this day in David—referring to His
rest143—saying therefore, “Since it remaineth that some are to enter
into the rest of God, and they to whom it was first preached did not
enter into it because of unbelief; again he limiteth a certain day; saying
in David after so long a time, as it is said above, ‘Today if you shall hear
His voice, harden not your hearts.’ ”144 Therefore, this people prays its
Father—for in this day, which is Christ, is suffered the appointed time
of its salvation and the end of its travail—that in Him they may be
given His supersubstantial bread, which is charity, in such wise that it
be not delayed to another day, but that it be given them by the Father.
For it is the bond of perfection; rather, it is perfection itself, as the
Apostle says to the Corinthians, “But when that which is perfect has
come, that which is in part will be done away.”145 It is perfection such
that without it no man can be perfect, as St. Paul tells the Corinthians:
“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity,
I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should
have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if
I should have all faith that I could remove mountains, and have not
charity, I am nothing.”146 Therefore, this people prays that this super-
substantial bread, charity, be given them by the Father so that after
receiving it, they may be found perfect in the sight of their God, as the
Living Bread which descends from heaven reveals, when He teaches
them in the Gospel, saying, “Be you therefore perfect, as also your
heavenly Father is perfect.”147

[Chapter VI]
And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.—But the
evangelist discloses what those debts are which this people prays its
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 621
Father to pardon when he says, “And forgive us our sins.”148 Therefore,
we should know that the first father of this people sinned before his
God, as the Lord reveals through the prophet Isaiah, saying to the
people, Israel, “Thy first father sinned.”140 Therefore, that father, the
spirit of the first form, confessing his sins to his God, says in the Gospel,
“Father, I have sinned against heaven before thee.”150 And in the psalm
he says, “To Thee only have I sinned and have done evil before
Thee.”151 And in the same way, the people of that first father sinned
before their God, as the spirit of the Lord speaking through the prophet
Jeremiah, tells them, “For the sins that you have committed before God,
you shall be carried away captive into Babylon by the king of Ba¬
bylon.”152 And the prophet Daniel, praying for himself and for his
people, says: “O my Lord God, great and terrible, we have sinned, we
have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly. For by reason of our
sins and the iniquities of our fathers, Israel, Thy people are a re¬
proach.”153 And again, that same people hated one another and sinned
one against the other, as the Apostle, speaking to his son Titus, says,
“For we ourselves also were once unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves
to divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and
hating one another.”154 And the Lord, referring to that sinful people,
says through the prophet Jeremiah: “Let every man take heed of his
neighbor and let him not trust in any brother of his, for every sup¬
planting brother will utterly supplant, and every friend will walk deceit¬
fully with his brother. And a man shall mock his brother and shall not
speak truth, for they have taught their tongue to speak lies; they have
labored to commit iniquity.”155 And the Lord, speaking to His city
Jerusalem of the same thing, says through the prophet Ezechiel: “Behold
the princes of Israel, every one hath employed his arm in thee to shed
blood. They have abused father and mother in thee, they have oppressed
the stranger in the midst of thee, they have grieved the child and the
widow in thee; and every one hath committed abomination,”156 and so
on. And in the Book of Wisdom it is written of the sins of this people:
“For either they sacrifice their own children, or keep watches full of
madness, so that now they neither keep life nor marriage undefiled, but
one killeth another through envy, or grieveth him through adultery. And
all things are mingled together: blood, murder, thefts, dissimulation and
corruptions, unfaithfulness, tumults and perjury, mutilations, forgetful¬
ness of the good things of God, defiling of souls, changing of births,
622 Catharist Literature

disorder in marriage, the irregularity of adultery and uncleanness.”157 157

Therefore, through His Son the Holy Father commanded that the
people who had sinned against one another must themselves forgive,
saying, “Forgive and you shall be forgiven. But if you will not forgive
men their offenses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your
offenses.”158 And again, our Lord Jesus Christ says in the Gospel, when
discussing the lord who was angry with the wicked servant who did not
wish to forgive his fellow servant, commanding him to be delivered to
the torturers until he paid all the debt, “So also shall my heavenly
>> 1 S
Father do to you, if you forgive not each the other from your hearts.”159
150

And the Apostle, to whom Christ spoke, says to the Ephesians, “Be ye
kind one to another, and merciful, forgiving one another, even as God
has forgiven you in Christ.”180 And to the Colossians he says, “Bear
with one another, and yourselves forgive, if any have a complaint against
another; even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also.”181 There¬
fore, this people, wishing to forgive as the Lord commands, so that
they may be forgiven, prays to their Father to forgive them their debts
as they forgive all those owed to them.
And it should be known that they were debtors from the beginning,
that is, one to the other, to love among themselves, as St. John discloses
in the Epistle, saying, “And now I beseech thee, lady, not as writing a
new commandment to thee, but that which we have had from the be¬
ginning, that we love one another.”162 In the same way that very people
is in debt for that debt, which is mutual charity, at the fitting time and
on the day of salvation, as the Apostle tells the Romans, saying, “We
are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.”168 And
u
again he says Owe no man anything but to love one another. For he
that loveth hath fulfilled the Law.”164 Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ
recalling that debt, which is love, says in the Gospel, “These things I
command you, that you love one another.”165 And St. John says in the
Epistle, “O dearest, if God hath so loved us, we also ought to love one
another. This is His commandment, that we should believe in the name
of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another.”166 Therefore, this people
loves one another and forgives all its debtors, accepting what St. Luke
says when he prays to his Father, saying, “Forgive us our sins, for we
also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.”167
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 623
[Chapter VII]
And lead us not into temptation.—Again, the holy people prays its
Holy Father that He lead it not into temptation lest, caught up in that
temptation, it should fall, as the Apostle says to the Corinthians, “He
that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. Let no
temptation take hold on you but such as is human.”168 Therefore, our
bishop, Jesus Christ, was tempted by the semblance of all things without
sinning, so that He might aid His brethren in their temptations, as St.
Paul tells the Hebrews, “For we have not a bishop who cannot have
compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted by the semblance of all
things, without sin”;189 and, “In that, wherein he himself hath suffered
and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted.”170
And we should know that our Lord sometimes tempts His people, as
Wisdom says: “The souls of the just are in the hands of God, and the
torment of death shall not touch them, because God hath tried them
and found them worthy of himself, like gold in a furnace.”171 And the
Apostle, referring to this temptation, says to the Hebrews, “By faith
Abraham offered Isaac, when he was put to the test to offer up his only
begotten son, he who should have received the promises.”172 Again, the
Lord suffered His people to be tempted, as St. Peter says in the Epistle:
“Dearly beloved, think not strange the burning heat which is taking
place among you to try you, and do not be afraid, as if some new thing
happened to you; but if you partake of the sufferings of Christ, re¬
joice.”173 And St. James says, “But every man is tempted by his own
concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.”174 But this temptation
is contrived by that tempter of whom St. Matthew says, “Then Jesus
was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil; and the
tempter coming, said,”175 and so on. And St. Luke says, “And all the
temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a time.”176
And the Apostle says to the Thessalonians, “For this cause also, I, for¬
bearing no longer, sent to know your faith lest perhaps he that tempteth
should have tempted you, and our labor should be made vain.”177
And it should be known that our Lord sometimes suffered temptation
so that an example of His patience might be given to those to come, as
it is written in the Book of Tobit, the elderly man who feared God:
“Now this trial the Lord therefore permitted to happen to him, that an
example might be given to posterity of his patience, as also of holy
Job.”178 And St. James says in the Epistle, “Take, my brethren, for an
624 Catharist Literature

example of labor and patience, the prophets,”179 and so on. And it

should be known that the Lord causes this temptation for His people
for two reasons. One is that in the days of old that people tempted the
Lord and tried Him, according to what St. Paul tells the Hebrews.180
And to the Corinthians, he says, “Neither let us tempt God, as some of
them tempted, and perished by the serpents.”181 And, therefore, that
same Lord, wishing to bring about what He had said of His vineyard,
which is the house of Israel, says through the prophet Isaiah, “In
measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, I shall judge it.”182
And, therefore, the Lord wishes to try and to tempt this people, for the
people tempted Him. The other reason for the Lord’s temptation is that
when that people shall be tried with temptations, they may receive the
crown of life, as is written in the Book of Wisdom, “Because God hath
tried them, and found them worthy of himself; He hath proved them as
gold in the furnace, and as a victim of a holocaust.”183 And St. James
says, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath
been proved, he shall receive the crown of life which God hath promised
to them that love Him.”184 Therefore, the Lord, speaking to those who
with Him had suffered temptation, tells them: “But you are they who
have continued with me in my temptations; and I dispose to you, as my
Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at
my table in my kingdom; and you may sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.”185
And it should be known that the double temptation that is the lot of
the people of God, the temptation of God and the temptation of the
devil,180 befalls them for two causes: the temptation of God to life and
the temptation of the devil to death. The temptation to life is that of
which Wisdom says, “Afflicted in few things, in many shall they be well
rewarded, because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of
himself,”187 and so forth. And St. James says, “Blessed is the man that
endureth temptation.”188 And it is written in the Book of Wisdom:
“Wisdom inspireth life into her children, that they may remain secure.
For she walketh with him [who is] in temptation. She will bring upon
him fear and dread and trial, till she try him in his thought; and she will
give him joy, and will disclose her secrets to him, and will heap upon
him treasures of knowledge, understanding, and justice.”189 The temp¬
tation of the devil to death is that of which St. Paul, speaking to
Timothy, says, “For they that will become rich, fall into temptation.
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 625
and into the snare of the devil.”190 And St. John says in the Apocalypse,
“Behold, the devil will cast some of you into prison that you may be
tried, and you shall have tribulation ten days”;191 and again, he says to
the angel of Philadelphia, “I too will keep thee from the hour of temp¬
tation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell
upon the earth.”19*
It should be known that this people, like their father, the psalmist
David, when praying to his Father, “Search me, O Lord, and try me,”19*
does not pray its Father not to tempt them, but prays the Holy Father
not to lead them into the temptation of the devil and to death for their
sins. Therefore, our Lord, knowing beforehand the temptation prepared
for Simon and the other apostles, says in the Gospel: “Behold, Simon,
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once con¬
verted again, confirm thy brethren.”194 And then He says to them,
“Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation.”19*

[Chapter VIII]
But deliver us jrom evil.—This people which prays to the Holy
Father is the flock of the Lord which prays to Him to be delivered from
evil, for it has been taken captive, as the prophet Jeremiah discloses
when he says: “My soul shall weep for your pride; weeping it shall weep,
and my eyes shall run down with tears, because the flock of the Lord is
taken away captive and scattered.”190 Of this flock the Lord says in the
Gospel, “Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give
you the kingdom of life.”197 This flock, which is the people of the Lord,
has been captured in such wise that those who took them would not let
them go, as the prophet Jeremiah says: “The children of Israel and the
children of Judah are oppressed; all that have taken them captives hold
them fast, they will not let them go. Their redeemer is strong, the Lord
of hosts is His name.”198 And when that people was thrust into that
prison, they cried to the Lord, saying, “Deliver us from evil.”199 We
understand this evil from which the people of God prays for deliverance
to be the devil, for in the Holy Scriptures he is called evil, and Satan,
and the devil. He is called evil as St. Matthew reveals in the Gospel in
regard to the sowing, saying, “When anyone heareth the word of the
kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and
catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.”200 He is also called
626 Catharist Literature

Satan, as St. Mark discloses in referring to the same thing, saying, “As
soon as they have heard the word, Satan cometh and taketh away the
word that was sown in their hearts.”201 And further, he is called the
devil, as St. Luke says, “The devil taketh the word out of their heart.”202
And he is called the enemy, as St. Matthew reveals when speaking of
the sowing of the weeds, saying, “Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in
thy field? Whence then hath it cockle?”208 And thereafter Christ says in
exposition of that parable, “The enemy that oversowed is the devil.’ 204

Moreover, he is that evil man from whose malice the psalmist, crying to
the Lord, prayed to be delivered,205 saying, “Deliver me, O Lord, from
the evil man, rescue me from the unjust man.”206 And again he says,
“Have mercy on me, O Lord, for man hath trodden me under foot, all
the day long he hath afflicted me, fighting against me.”207 In the same
way, the people of God, crying the same plea, says, “Arise, O Lord,
help us and deliver us for thy name’s sake.”208 But this evil man reigned
over them for their sins and yet reigns over many, as is written in the
Book of Job, “... and over the nations and over all men who maketh
a man that is a hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people.”209 There¬
fore, that same Job says, “God hath shut me up with the unjust man,
and hath delivered me into the hands of the wicked.”210 This is the very
same enemy of whom David complains to his God, saying: “Hear, O
Lord, my prayer. For the enemy hath persecuted my soul; he hath
brought down my life to the earth. He hath made me to dwell in dark¬
ness as those that have been dead of old.”211 And our mother, Jerusalem,
complaining of that enemy, says through the prophet Jeremiah My
children are lost because the enemy hath power. Those that I nourished,
my enemy hath consumed them.”212 And again she says through the
prophet Baruch: “The Lord hath brought upon me great mourning. For
I have seen the captivity of my children. My children, suffer patiently,
for through the wrath of God the enemy hath persecuted thee.”218 Be¬
cause of this, the Apostle, speaking to the children of Jerusalem, says of
that enemy, “And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet.”214
And the prophet Jeremiah, speaking of that same Jerusalem, which is
our mother, says: “The enemy hath put out his hand to all her desirable
things. The kings of the earth would not have believed that the enemy
should enter in by the gates of Jerusalem. The Lord hath cast off his
altar. He hath delivered the walls of the towers thereof into the hands
of the enemy.’ 215
60, Catharist Church (Part B) 627
And it should be known that this enemy, which has reigned over
nations and over all men, as was said above, is called not only devil and
Satan, but, in the interpretation of Holy Scriptures, he is also called the
king of Assyria,216 who devoured the people and cut off their seat on
high, and he seized the princes of the people, and placed his terror on
earth among the living, and the cedars were not higher in the paradise
of God. Him all the trees that were in the paradise of God envied;217 he
was the ruler of the people of God, for they would not be converted.
The Lord promised that He would deliver His people from him, and
that the city would be taken from the powerful, and what had been made
captive would be rescued from the mighty. And the Lord will deliver
His people from the hand of the most powerful, even as the prophet
Jeremiah says, “Israel [is a] scattered flock, the lions have driven him
away; first Assyria devoured him.”218 And the Lord says through the
prophet Isaiah: “I will visit the fruit of the proud heart of the king of
Assyria, and the glory of his haughtiness. For he hath said: By the
strength of my own hand I have done it, and by my own wisdom I have
understood. And I have removed the bounds of the people, and have
taken their princes and pulled down them that sat on high. And my hand
hath found the strength of the people as a nest.”219 And the Lord says
through the prophet Ezechiel: “Behold the Assyrian like a cedar in
Lebanon. The waters nourished him, the deep set him up on high. The
cedars in the paradise of God were not higher than he. All the trees of
delight in the paradise envied him.”220 And again: “Ashur is there and
all his multitude, all of them slain, and fallen by the sword, they that had
heretofore spread terror in the land of the living.”221 And the Lord,
speaking of His people, says through the prophet Osee: “But the As¬
syrian himself [shall be] their king, because they would not be con¬
verted.”222 And the prophet Micah says, “And the Lord shall deliver us
from the Assyrian, when he shall come into our land, and when he shall
tread in our borders.”228 And the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah:
“Shall the prey be taken from the strong? Or can that which was taken
by the mighty be delivered? Verily, the city224 shall be taken away from
the strong; and that which was taken by the mighty shall be delivered.”225
And the Holy Spirit, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, says:
“Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations. The Lord will redeem Jacob,
and the Lord will deliver him out of the hand of one mightier than he.
And they shall come and give praise in Mount Zion. And they shall flow
628 Catharist Literature

together to the good things of the Lord. And my people shall be filled
with my good things, saith the Lord.”226
Therefore, the people of God, trusting and hoping in these promises
aforesaid and in others of the Lord, because many of them are still held
in the snares of the devil, “captive at his will,”227 as St. Paul explains,
cry out to the Holy Father day and night, saying, “Deliver us from evil.”

[Chapter IX]
For Thine is the kingdom.—As for this kingdom, we understand it to
be the spirit of the first form and, likewise, the uniting of the spirits
subject to him, of which kingdom the four beasts, that is, the four king¬
doms that must rise from the earth, were receivers and holders forever
and ever, as the prophet Daniel shows, when he says, “These four great
be&sts are four kingdoms, which shall arise out of the earth; and they
shall receive the kingdom of the most high holy God forever and
ever.”228 But the blessed kingdom of our father David, of whom we have
spoken above, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ, “going into a far country
to receive for Himself a kingdom and to return,”229 as is written in the
Gospel, has redeemed the aforesaid kingdom with His blood and has
made that kingdom a kingdom for his God, even as this kingdom grow¬
ing great declares in the Apocalypse, saying: “Thou art worthy, O Lord,
to take the book and to open the seals thereof; because Thou wast slain
and hast redeemed us in Thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and
people, and nation. And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests,
and we shall reign on the earth.”230 But over this kingdom the same
Jesus Christ is to sit when He has delivered it to God and the Father,
that He may confirm and strengthen it in judgment and justice, from
henceforth unto eternity, as was said above. Therefore, those spirits
make a kingdom for their God, as was said before, praying him to de¬
liver them from evil, for they are His. Praying for this, the psalmist,
who is their chief, praying to his God, says, “I am thine, save thou me;
for I have sought thy justifications.”231 And again, “I am Thy servant.
Give me understanding that I may know Thy commandments.”232 And
the Apostle says to the Romans, “For none of you liveth to himself, and
no m dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or
whether we die, we are the Lord’s.”238 And it is written in the Book of
Wisdom: “But Thou, our God, art gracious and true, and ordering all
things in mercy. For if we sin, we are Thine, knowing Thy greatness, and
60. Catharist Church (Part B) 629
if we sin not, we know that we are counted with Thee.”234

[Chapter X]
And the power.—As for this power, we understand it to be the life
of the first form, which is from the Lord, and other lives are placed in
him. It should be known further that the strength of the psalmist—whom
we understand to be the spirit of the first form—which is his life, leaves
him, as that psalmist reveals when he says, “My heart is troubled, my
strength hath left me.”*** Therefore, that strength, which is life, weakens
with the loosing of the spirit and wanes, as the psalmist shows, saying,
“My strength is weakened through poverty.”238 Likewise, the strength
of our mother [Jerusalem] weakens, as she herself reveals through the
prophet Jeremiah, saying: “My strength is weakened. The Lord hath
delivered me into a hand out of which I shall not be able to rise.”237

[Chapter XI]
And the glory.—This glory is of our Father who is in heaven. We
understand this glory to be the soul of our father David and the souls
also of his sons. Therefore, the Lord says through the prophet Ezechiel,
“Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul
of the son is mine.”238 The psalmist, speaking of this glory, which is his
soul, says further, “I will sing and will rejoice in my glory.”239 And
because he himself wished to sing and rejoice in his glory, he cried to
it, saying, “Arise, O my glory, arise psaltery and harp.” And that glory
said in answer, “I will arise early.”240 For this reason that same prophet,
being aided by God and rejoicing, cried to Him, saying, “Thou hast
turned for me my mourning into joy; Thou hast cut my sackcloth and
hast compassed me with gladness, to the end that my glory may sing to
Thee.”241 Therefore, these three substances, that is, the kingdom and
the power and the glory, which are the spirit and the life and the soul,
are of the Holy Father in the ages,242 that is, in the fathers, which means
in the visitations. For visitations are called ages, that is, fathers, because
they are fathers of the spirits. Of this the psalmist personifying the
spirit, says, “We have heard, O God, with our ears; our fathers have
declared to us the work Thou hast wrought in their days, and in the
days of old.”243 And again, he says, “In Thee our fathers hoped, and
Thou hast delivered them. They cried to Thee, and they were saved;
they trusted in Thee and were not confounded.”244 In the same way, we
630 Catharist Literature

understand that the charities are the ages of ages,215 that is, fathers of
the fathers, visitations. Therefore, St. John says in the Apocalypse,
“Benediction, splendor, and wisdom; the making of grace, honor, and
glory, and power to our Lord in ages of ages. Amen”;245 meaning in the
charities which are the fathers of the visitations, which visitations are
fathers of Amen,247 in our understanding. It is the spirit of the first form
which is called Amen, as St John shows in the Apocalypse: “And all
the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves over him. Even so.
Amen.”248 For this Amen will be bewailed by all the tribes of earth
because our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died for his sins so that
through death He might overcome him who had command over death,
that is, the devil, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews, “And that He
might deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to servitude.”24*
Glory be from all the faithful who are in Jesus Christ.
AMEN.
 Abbreviations
Used in the Appendix, Notes, and Bibliography

AASS Acta sanctorum (q.v. in the Bibliography).

AFP Archivum fratrum praedicatorum.
AHDLMA Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen age.
ALKG A rchiv fur Literature und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters.
ASRSP Archivio della Societd romana di storia patria.
BEC Bibliotheque de VEcole des chartes.
B1SIAM Bullettino delVIstituto storico italiano per il medio evo e Archi¬
vio Muratoriano.
Concilia Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (see the entry
under Mansi in the Bibliography).
DNB The Dictionary of National Biography {q.v. in the Bibliography).
DTC Dictionnaire de theologie catholique {q.v. in the Bibliography).
MA Le Moyen age: Revue d’histoire et de philologie.
MGHSS Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores (q.v. in the Bibli¬
ography).
MS Mediaeval Studies.
PL Patrologia latina (see the entry under Migne in the Bibli¬
ography).
RBPH Revue beige de philologie et d’histoire.
RHE Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique.
RHLL Revue historique et litteraire de Languedoc.
RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophic religieuse.
RHR Revue de I’histoire des religions.
Rolls
Series Rerum britannicarum medii aevi Scriptores (q.v. in the Bibli¬
ography).
RQH Revue des questions historiques.
RSCl Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia.
RSI Rivista storica italiana.
RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques.
RTAM Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale.
ZKG Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte.
BLANK PAGE
 Appendix

A List of Polemical Sources

The following list includes, in approximately chronological order, those
works written in the twelfth, thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries which
had a polemical purpose, in that they were attacks on heresy or hostile
descriptions of it. The dates of composition are given as they are now
known, and mention is made of the sects against which each treatise is
directed. An asterisk (*) denotes those which are translated in whole or in
part in this volume, and in such cases the reader is referred to the introduc¬
tions and notes accompanying the translations for bibliographical data. For
other entries, the most recent or most available publication of the source is
noted (or the manuscripts, if the source is still unpublished), with a reference
to at least one scholarly discussion from which further information may be
obtained. Occasionally other documents are mentioned which do not quite
fit into the category of polemical literature, but which do contain substantial
information about heresy; these are not given separate numbers but are
placed where chronologically appropriate and are designated by letters. For
the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century literature on heresy, see note 185 to the
first part of the Introduction, and Vekene, Bibliographic der Inquisition.
See page 631 for the book and periodical titles abbreviated here.

*i. Peter the Venerable. Epistola sive tractatus adversus petrobrusianos.

1131-1133. Against the heresy of Peter of Bruys, with brief mention
of the heretic Henry. See Number 13.
*ii. William, a monk. Contra Henricum schismaticum et hereticum.
1133-1135. Against the heretic Henry. See Number 12.
iii. Hugh of Amiens, archbishop of Rouen (d. 1164). Contra haereticos
sui temporis sive de ecclesia et eius ministri libri tres. 1145-1146.
An essay on Christian dogma and discipline giving a little infor¬
mation about the heretics he attacked, who were probably found in
Nantes. Discussed in Manselli, “Per la storia dell’eresia: Studi
minori,” BISIAM, LXVII (1955), 235-44.
iv. Eckbert of Schdnau. Sermones tredecim contra haereticos. 1163-
1167. In Migne, PL, CXCV, 11-98. An attack on dualist heretics
discovered at Cologne in 1163. Eckbert was somewhat influenced
by St. Augustine’s description of Manichaeans. Brief comment in
Borst, pp. 6-7. F. W, E. Roth, Die Visionen und Briefe der hi.
Elisabeths, sowie die Schriften der Abte Eckbert und Emecho von
Schdnau, 2d ed. (Briinn, 1886), was not available to us.
 A ppendix
*v. Bonacursus. Manifestatio haeresis catharorum quam fecit Bonacur-
sus. 1176-1190. Statements about the Cathars by a convert, with
appended scriptural texts for refutation of those and other heretics
(Passagians and Arnoldists). See Number 25.
*vi. Vacarius. Liber contra multiplices et varios errores. 1177-1185.
A treatise in the form of a letter refuting the errors of Hugo
Speroni. See Number 21.
(a) Abbot Joachim of Flora (ca. 1135-1202), the Calabrian mystic,
attacked the Cathars in his Apocalipsim, written after 1183,
and also denounced the Poor of Lyons in his De articulis fidei
(1183-1184) and in his Tractatus super quatuor evangelia (ca.
1200). Pertinent passages from these sources are quoted in notes
in Thouzellier, Catharisme et v aide isme, pp. 115-27.
*vii. Bernard of Fontcaude. Adversus Waldensium sectam liber. Ca.
1191. Arguments against the Waldenses with brief mention of other
heretics. See Number 34.
(a) Ralph the Ardent. Homilia xix. 1150-1200. In Migne, PL, CLV,
2010-13. A sermon denouncing the Cathars. See the second
part of the Introduction, p. 58 and n. 23.
*viii. Alan of Lille. De fide catholica contra haereticos sui temporis.
1190-1202. The first full-scale polemic, widely copied in the Middle
Ages. Books I and II are against the Cathars and Waldenses; Books
III and IV are directed at Jews and Saracens. See Number 35.
*ix. Prevostin (Praepositinus) of Cremona (?). Summa contra haereticos.
Ca. 1200. Against Cathars and Passagians with brief mention of
other heretics, perhaps Waldenses. See Number 26.
*x. De haeresi catharorum in Lombardia. 1200-1215. Historical account
of the rise of Catharism in twelfth-century Italy, with a description
of the sect’s beliefs and a list of the hierarchies of the several
divisions. See Number 23.
*xi. Manifestatio haeresis Albigensium et Lugdunensium. 1200-1215.
Description of the beliefs of Cathars and Waldenses in Languedoc.
See Number 37.
xii. Durand of Huesca. Liber antiheresis. Before 1207. Prologue printed
in Dondaine, “Aux Origines du Valdeisme,” AFP, XVI (1946),
232-35. (English translation of the Prologue in Petry, History of
Christianity, pp. 351-52.) Other excerpts printed in Thouzellier, “La
Profession trinitaire,” RTAM, XXVII (1960), 283-89, and “Con-
troverses vaudoises-cathares a la fin du XIIe si£cle,” AHDLMA,
XXXV (1960), 206-7. A most important polemic against the Cathars
by a follower of Waldes of Lyons, it reveals not only the hostility
of Waldenses toward Cathars but also the doctrinal orthodoxy of
the faction to which Durand belonged before his return to the
Church in 1207. The Liber antiheresis provided also much of the
material for other tracts by Durand (items xiii, xvii) and by his
associate Ermengaud (item xiv). One manuscript preserved the pro¬
fession of faith of Waldes translated in Number 32. See Thouzel-
List of Polemical Sources 635
lier, Catharisme et v aide isme, pp. 60-81. Dondaine and Mile Thou-
zellier agree that the treatise was composed before 1207; the latter
believes it a decade or more earlier.
xiii. Durand of Huesca (?). “Opusculum contra hereticos et eorum
errores.” 1200-1210? In Madrid, Biblioteca nacionale, MS 6911,
fols. 62r-122r. Table of chapters printed in Dondaine, “Durand de
Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 228-76. Against the Cathars, who
are not named, this incorporates the earlier work of the monk
William (item ii, above) and is related to one “edition” of the work
of Ermengaud (item xiv, below).
xiv. Ermengaud of Beziers. Contra haereticos. 1200-1210. In Migne,
PL, CCIV, 1235-72, and CLXXVIII, 1823-46. Written against the
Cathars by a companion of Durand of Huesca, it is known only in
incomplete form. Additions in one manuscript which refer to the
Waldenses have been shown not to be part of the original work in
its several versions. The additions are published in Gonnet, “Walden-
sia,” RHPR, XXXIII (1953), 250-54. Discussion in Dondaine,
“Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 228-76; and Thouzel-
lier, “Le ‘Liber antiheresis’ de Durand de Huesca et la ‘Contra
hereticos’ d’Ermengaud de Beziers,” RHE, LV (1960), 130-41.
xv. Guarnerius of Rochefort (?). Contra Amaurianos. Ca. 1210. Pub¬
lished and discussed in Clemens Baumker, Ein anonymer, wahr-
scheinlich dem Garnerius von Rochefort zugehoriger Traktat aus
dem Anfang des XIII Jahrhunderts. Against the short-lived sect of
Amalricians of Paris.
xvi. Ebrard of Bethune. Liber antiheresis. Before 1212. In Maxima
bibliotheca veterum patrum, XXIV, 1525-84. A work of little value;
against dualists, with whom the author confuses the Waldenses; he
also attacks Jews. Brief notice in Borst, p. 9.
*xvii. Durand of Huesca. Liber contra manicheos. Ca. 1222-1223. Ed. by
Thouzellier in Une Somme anti-cathare. A treatise replying to a
work by an Albigensian heretic, for which purpose Durand copied
passages of the heretic’s tract into his own. Only the first two books
of the Liber have survived. The portions of the heretical exposition
preserved in this way were earlier published by Thouzellier in Un
Traite cathare and are translated in Number 58. Exhaustive com¬
mentary on the Liber is in Thouzellier, Catharisme et valdeisme,
pp.303-424.
(a) William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris (1228-1249), in his theo¬
logical works, particularly De universo (1231-1236), refuted
some Catharist doctrines. His Opera omnia (2 vols.: Orleans,
1674; reprint, 1962) was not available to us. Borst (p. 16) con¬
siders William’s work important, citing also N. Valois, Guillaume
d*Auvergne: Sa vie et ses ouvrages (Paris, 1880).
(b) Luke, bishop of Tuy (d. 1249). De altera vita fideique contra-
versiis adversus Albigensium errores libri tres. 1234. This is an
excerpt from Luke’s life of Isidore of Seville (Maxima biblio-
636 A ppendix
theca veterum patrum, XXV, 188-251). Made up largely of
excerpts from the works of Gregory I and Isidore, it also con¬
tains passages intended to refute heretical errors about life after
death and to warn against heretical perversities, and it gives a
number of anecdotes about the Albigenses. Brief comment in
Borst, p. 14, n. 4.
*xviii. Salvo Burci. Liber supra Stella. 1235. Attack on the Cathars, the
Poor of Lyons, and the Poor Lombards by a layman of Piacenza.
See Number 45, part B.
*xix. St. Peter Martyr of Verona (?). Summa contra haereticos. 1235-
1238. Against the Cathars and various other sects: Predestinarians,
Circumcisers, Speronists, Poor of Lyons, Rebaptizers. See Number
45, part C.
*xx. George. Disputatio inter catholicum et paterinum hereticum. 1240-
1250. Composed in the form of a debate between a Catholic and
a member of the sect of Bagnolenses in Lombardy. See Number 47.
*xxi. James Capelli (Jacopus de Capellis). Summa contra hereticos. 1240-
1250. Against the Cathars. See Number 49.
*xxii. Moneta of Cremona. Adversus Catharos et Valdenses libri quinque.
1241-1244. A massive work, primarily against the Cathars but with
some comment on the Waldenses and other heretics. See Number
50.
(a) A poem in Provencal, written after 1244, purports to be the
discussion between Sicart of Figueiras, a heretic, and the in¬
quisitor Izam. It was, perhaps, issued as Catholic propaganda
to show the heretics in a bad light after the capture of their
stronghold, Montsegur, and the massacre there. Published by
Paul Meyer, as “Le Debat d’lzarn et de Sicart de Figueiras,”
Annuaire-bulletin de la Societe de Vhistoire de France, XVI
(1879), 233-92; and separately (Nogent-le-Retrou, 1880). There
is an abridged English translation in Oldenbourg, Massacre at
Montsegur, Appendix F.
*xxiii. Rainerius Sacconi. Summa de Catharis et Pauperibus de Lugduno.
1250. Probably the best-known tract against these heretics. See
Number 51. A second and longer version was created when a
German inquisitor, known only as the “Pseudo-Rainerius” or “Anon¬
ymous of Passau,” added other materials, largely pertaining to the
Waldenses. It was edited under the name of Rainerius by Jacob
Gretser in 1614 and appeared in various editions of the Bibliotheca
veterum patrum—for example, that of Lyons (1677), XXV, 262-77.
On it, see Preger, “Beitrage zur Geschichte des Waldesier im Mittel-
alter,” Abhandlungen der historischen Classe der koniglich bayeri-
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XIII (1877), 184-86; and
Franz Unterkircher, “‘Pseudo-Rainier' und ‘Passauer Anonymous,”’
Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische G eschieh tsforsc hung,
LXIII (1955), 41-46.
xxiv. Summa contra hereticos. After 1250. Unpublished, it is found in
List of Polemical Sources 637

three manuscripts: Vatican, MS lat. 4255, fols. 54r-72r; Florence,

Laurentian, Pluteus VIII, dext. 6, fols. 288r-296v; and in the same
library, MS 404, fols. 174r-240v. A few lines from the Vatican
manuscript were published in Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 326-27.
*(a) Stephen of Bourbon. Tractatus de diversis materiis praedicabilis.
1249-1261. Contains anecdotes about the Albigenses and Wal-
denses. See Numbers 33 and 52.
*xxv. “Summae contra haereticos.” These are six compilations of scrip¬
tural texts considered pertinent to the defense of various points of
Catholic doctrine which were denied by heretics. Their dates are
uncertain, perhaps the second quarter of the thirteenth century and
later, although they may be based on earlier models. Chapter head¬
ings from two of these compilations appear in Number 48; see
note 2 there for the list of the summas published or still in manu¬
script.
xxvi. Benedict of Alignan. “Tractatus fidei contra diversos errores super
titulum de summa trinitate et fide catholica in decretalibus.” 1261.
Benedict was abbot of Notre-Dame de la Grasse (1224), then bishop
of Marseilles (1229-1268), and, probably in 1258, joined the Fran¬
ciscan order. Seventeen manuscripts of his summa are enumerated
in the study by Martin Grabmann, “Der Franziskanerbischof Bene-
dictus de Alignano (t 1268) und seine Summa zum Caput Firmiter
des vierten Laterankonzils,” in Kirchengeschichtlichen Studien,
pp. 50-64, esp. pp. 51-53; the content of the summa is analyzed
ibid., pp. 55-59. Five pieces which are in the nature of appendices
to the summa were printed by Douais, “Les Her6tiques du Midi
au XIIIe siecle: Cinq pieces in6dits,” Annales du Midi, III (1891),
367-80. The commentary on the decree of the Fourth Lateran
Council is an extensive discussion and refutation of heretical errors,
ancient and contemporary, but is concerned chiefly with those of
the Waldenses and Albigenses and, in Grabmann’s opinion (ibid.,
pp. 62-63), puts Benedict's summa in the tradition of the great
polemical tracts of the thirteenth century.
xxvii. David of Augsburg (?). De inquisitione haereticorum. This, which
was intended for the use of inquisitors, exists in two versions: The
shorter, probably written in the second half of the twelfth century,
was published in Mart&ne and Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdo-
torum, V, 1777-94. A longer one was edited by Preger, “Der Traktat
des David von Augsburg liber die Waldesier,” Abhandlungen der
historischen Classe der koniglich bayerischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, XIV (1878), 181-235; see esp. pp. 204-35. It is probable,
though not certain, that the shorter version is the earlier; its attri¬
bution to the Franciscan inquisitor, David of Augsburg (d. 1271),
is not certain. The heresy chiefly in view is that of the Waldenses.
See the work of Preger just cited and a description of the tract with
a review of the problems connected with it in Dondaine, “Le Manuel
de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 93, 104-5, 180-83.
638 A ppendix

*xxviii. Brevis summula contra herrores notatos hereticorum. 1250-1260?

A composite work; probably none of its parts were original with
the Franciscan friar whose copy survives. The heretics described
are the various groups of Cathars in Lombardy. See Number 53.
*xxix. Anselm of Alessandria. Tractatus de haereticis. 1260-1270. Various
components include a narrative of the origin of the Cathars in
Lombardy and paragraphs of information about the beliefs of
Cathars and Waldenses and the hierarchy of the Cathars. See Num¬
bers 24 and 54.
Listed here although they originated in different times are four
relatively short statements about the Waldenses:
(a) Litterae episcopi Placentini de Pauperibus de Lugduno. In
Dondaine, “Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 273-74.
The identification of the author as Ardicius, bishop of Piacenza
(1192-1199), is probable. The letter enumerates errors con¬
fessed by members of the sect of Poor of Lyons.
*(b) Three short statements often found together in manuals for
inquisitors, concerning (1) errors shared by the Poor of Lyons
and Poor Lombards; (2) the method by which the Waldenses
consecrated the Eucharist; and (3) a list of Waldensian errors.
All are from the second half of the thirteenth century. They
were printed in Mart&ne and Durand, Thesaurus novus anec-
dotorum, V, 1754-56; and one version of them from Anselm
of Alessandria’s copy, is translated in Number 54 (§ 15). See
Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947),
95, 150, 166; and the same author’s “La Hierarchie cathare,
II-III,’’ AFP, XIX (1949), 250.
(c) Hec sunt manifesta per conversos de secta Waldensium. Date
uncertain. In Dondaine, “Durand de Huesca,’’ AFP, XXIX
(1959), 274-75. The learned editor overlooked the fact that the
same statement from another manuscript (Paris, Bibliotheque
nationale, MS lat. 15179, fols. 354r-55v) had already been
published by Paul Guillaume in Bulletin de la Societe d’etudes
des Fiautes-Alpes, VII (1888), 220-22, and reprinted from
there by Jules Chevalier, Memoire historique sur les heresies
en Dauphine avant le XVIe siecle, p. 8, n. 1.
(d) De pauperibus de Lugduno. Late thirteenth to early fourteenth
century. In Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 92-97, without the prologue
which is given in Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,”
AFP, XVII (1947), 184, cf. 93. Describes the ecclesiastical
organization and the practices of Waldenses.
*xxx. Bernard Gui. Practica inquisitionis haeretica pravitatis. 1323-1324.
An inquisitor’s description of Cathars, Waldenses, “pseudo-Apostles,”
Beguins, Jews, and sorcerers; part of his manual on inquisitorial
practice. See Number 55.
 Notes

A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE MEDIEVAL

POPULAR HERESIES
For book and periodical titles abbreviated in the notes, see the list of abbrevia¬
tions on page 631.

1. It should be noted at the outset that in this Introduction, when the

literature in which various topics may be pursued is cited, studies in English
>

whenever known to us, are preferred. The history of medieval heresies

bristles with problems of interpretation, particularly of their origins, but also
in the assessment of their character, their interrelationships with the whole
spiritual and intellectual development of the Christian West and with the
socioeconomic situation of the time, and their influence on the development
of the doctrines and institutions of the Church. Most such problems are only
mentioned in passing in these pages. One recent survey is by Luciano
Sommariva: “La Comprehension historique de l’heresie,” in Rene Nelli, ed.,
Spirituality de Vherisie, pp. 63-89. Reference to many studies on various
aspects and interpretations of heresy is made by Jeffrey B. Russell in “Inter
pretations of the Origins of Medieval Heresy,” A/S, XXV (1963), 25-53.
A useful bibliography of works published before 1960 is Kulcsar’s Eretnek-
mozgalmak a XI-XIV szdzadban [heretical movements from the eleventh to
the fourteenth century]. Another comprehensive bibliography is being pre¬
pared by Professor Herbert Grundmann.
2. See, for example, the statements Gratian selected for his Decretum
II, C. xxiv, Q. i, cc. 12 and 15 (Friedberg, I, 970). Gratian’s treatment of
heresy is analyzed in Henri Maisonneuve, Etudes sur les origines de VInqui¬
sition, rev. ed., pp. 65-79.
3. I Cor. 11:19. See Herbert Grundmann, Ketzergeschichte des Mittel-
alters, pp. 1-2, and references there cited.
4. Tit. 3:10 and Gal. 1:8.
5. See Ernest W. Nelson, “The Theory of Persecution,” in Persecution
and Liberty, pp. 3-20. M. Searle Bates (Religious Liberty) discusses the topic
in broad historical perspective. On the imperial and ecclesiastical traditions
of legislation about heresy, see Maisonneuve, chap. I.
6. Decretum II, C. xxiv, Q, iii, cc. 27-31 (Friedberg, I, 997-98).
7. Summa theologica II, part ii, q. 11, art. 2, r. o. 3. After quoting the
Decretum as just cited (c. 27) Aquinas says that doctors of the Church
might differ in matters undefined by the Church but if one were to deny
640 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)

articles of faith after definition he would be a heretic.

8. Janies Capelli, Summa contra hereticos, ed. by Bazzocchi, in La eresia
catara, Appendix, p. xvii. Cf. Aquinas Summa theologica II, part ii, q. 11,
art. 1: “Heresy is so called from being a choosing”; and Gratian Decretum
II, C. xxiv, Q. iii, c. 27 (Friedberg, I, 997-98), quoting St. Jerome.
9. This appears in a manuscript of Alan of Lille’s De fide catholica (on
which see No. 35), Bern, Stadt und Universitats Bibliothek, Bongarsiana
MS 335, fol. 65r, but is not in the printed edition of the work. Cf. Gratian
Decretum II, C. xxiv, Q. iii, c. 28 (Friedberg, I, 998), quoting St. Augustine.
10. See No. 2, n. 1.
11. Albert C. Shannon, The Popes and Heresy, pp. 3-10.
12. See, for example, the actions described in Nos. 6, 9, and 10. C. H.
Haskins (Studies in Mediaeval Culture, p. 200) cites others, remarking: “In¬
deed the preliminary question as to what constituted heresy might often
puzzle anyone but a theological expert.”
13. Robert Grosseteste is quoted as asserting that prelates who failed to
protect their flocks from “wolves” were themselves guilty of heresy (Matthew
Paris Chronica majora, V, 401).
14 Pagans, Moslems, and Jews were not regarded as heretics, but some¬
times were suspected of making common cause with them against the Church.
15. An exception reported in this volume (No. 44) is the sect of Amal-
ricians at Paris, who may be said to have been in the process of building a
following outside the enclave of the university when they were detected.
16. History of the Inquisition, III, 550; cf. ibid., I, 60-61.
17. Cf. Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II,
43, where he uses the phrase “questo laicismo religioso.” For a review of
the concepts, practices, and emphases of the “popular piety” of the eleventh
century, see Delaruelle, “La pieth popolare,” in Relazione del X Congresso,
III, 309-32. See also the essay by C. N. L. Brooke on the laity in the Middle
Ages in The Layman in Christian History, pp. 111-34; and Georges de
Lagarde, La Naissance de Vesprit laique, I, 83-90.
18. Grundmann (“Eresie e nuovi ordini religiosi,” in Relazione del X
Congresso, III, 377-89) discusses the concept of the vita apostolica in the
twelfth century, insisting on its origin as a religious, not a lay, movement,
and (Ketzergeschichte, p. 9) warns against stressing the lay character of the
popular heresies.
19. See Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II,
88, and the same author’s “Le eresie medioevali (sec. XI-XV),” in Grande
antologia filosofica, IV, 1599-1601. Grundmann takes a similar position in his
Religiose Bewegungen, and other authors expressing comparable views are
cited in Russell, “Interpretations of Medieval Hetesy,” MS, XXV (1963),
43-46, 51-52.
20. On the social circumstances of heretical movements, see Austin P.
Evans, “Social Aspects of Medieval Heresy,” in Persecution and Liberty,
pp. 93-116; also the review of the problem by Grundmann, “Eresie e nuovi
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch) 641

ordini religiosi,” in Relazione del X Congresso, III, 396-402. Ernst Werner

(Pauperes Christi) discusses the relationship between social and religious
unrest in the eleventh century. A number of other works emphasizing social
motivations for heresy are cited in Russell, “Interpretations of Medieval
Heresy,” MS, XXV (1963), 32-34. See also n. 27, below.
21. See Grundmann, Religiose Bewegungen, pp. 5-6, on the tendency of
religious movements to coalesce into orders or sects; also his discussion of
them in the twelfth century in “Eresie e nuovi ordini religiosi,” in Relazione
del X Congresso, III, 357-69. We are here using “sect” very broadly to
designate groups sharing unorthodox ideas. Paul Alphandery (“Remarques
sur le type sectaire,” in Transactions of the Third International Congress,
II, 354-57) argues that one should distinguish between heresies like Ca-
tharism, which are potentially universal religions, those like the Waldenses,
which were essentially Christian and reformist, and the messianic, apoca¬
lyptic sects, such as the Amalricians, limited to a chosen few.
22. Rainerius Sacconi (No. 51) gives an estimate of the number of “per¬
fected heretics” among the Cathars. Salvo Burci (No. 45, part B) speaks of
the comparative size of certain sects.
23. “On the one hand we have sectaries holding fast to all the essentials
of Christianity with antisacerdotalism as their mainspring, and on the other
we have Manichaeans” (Lea, History of the Inquisition, I, 61).
24. See, for example, Jean Guiraud, Histoire de Vlnquisition au moyen
age9 I, 32; Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie medioevali,” in Grande antol
filos., IV, 1601-18 (cf. the critical comments of Grundmann, “Eresie e nuovi
ordini religiosi,” in Relazione del X Congresso, III, 375); Alphandery, “Le
Gnosticisme dans les sectes m£dievaies latines,” RHPR, VII (1927), 396;
and Giovanni Gonnet, “Un decennio di studi suU’eterodossia medioevale,”
Protestantesimo, XVII (1962), 226-27, 230-31.
25. Russell (“Interpretations of Medieval Heresy,” MS, XXV [1963], 27)
cites examples—especially Cesare Cantu, writing in 1885, who “could attrib¬
ute the rise of heresy to the wiles of Tantico serpente.’” We are indebted
to this article for several of the citations in the following notes.
26. Major examples in English are Lea’s History of the Inquisition and
G. G. Coulton’s Inquisition and Liberty. See also Thomas de Cauzons,
Histoire de Vinquisition en France, Vol. I. A moderate Catholic view is
expressed in Elph&ge Vacandard, The Inquisition, trans. by B. L. Conway.
27. For example, Antonino de Stefano, Riformatori ed eretici del medi-
oevo; and particularly in respect of the heresy of the Humiliati, Luigi Zanoni,
Gli Umiliati nei loro rapporti con Veresia, Vindustria delta lana ed i comuni
nei secoli XII e XIII. Learned spokesmen for the Marxist interpretation are
Ernst Werner, in such works as Pauperes Christi and (with Martin Erb-
stosser) Ideologische Probleme des mittelalterlichen Plebejertums, and Gott¬
fried Koch, Frauenfrage und Ketzertum im Mittelalter.
28. Russell, “Interpretations of Medieval Heresy,” MS, XXV (1963),
42-43.
642 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)

29. See, in addition to the works cited in this note, others listed by Russell,
“Interpretations of Medieval Heresy,” MS, XXV (1963), 43ff. Studies of
the relationships among religious movements include the following: For the
Premonstratensians and contemporary sects, J. B. Valvekens, “Haereses ac
sectae ineuntis medii aevi et Praemonstratenses,” Analecta Praemonstraten-
sia, XXXIII (1957), 143-47; for Arnold of Brescia and other reformers,
Antonio Suraci, Arnaldo da Brescia; for the Waldenses and Franciscans,
Antoine Dondaine, “Aux Origines du Valdeisme,” AFP, XVI (1946), 191-
235; and Bernard Marthaler, “Forerunners of the Franciscans,” Franciscan
Studies, new ser., XVIII (1958), 133-42; for apostolics, orthodox and
heretical, Luchesius Spading, De Apostolicis, Pseudo-Apostolicis, Aposto-
linis; for the narrow line between orthodoxy and heresy among Beguines
and Beghards, Ernest W. McDonnell, The Beguines and Beghards in Medi¬
eval Culture.
30. See n. 146, below.
31. Certain members of the African Church of the fourth century for
whom Donatus became a spokesman refused to accept the services of
bishops and priests who had wavered even slightly under persecution, and
claimed that such clerics had lost grace and the power to perform the
sacraments. Under attack from Catholic polemicists and the emperors they
became a schismatic faction. As a group they disappeared in the seventh
century, although their fundamental ideas were to reappear repeatedly; see
W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church.
32. See the opening words of No. 24.
33. Amo Borst, Die Katharer, p. 59. See also R. M. Wilson, The Gnostic
Problem. There are short statements on dualism in Dmitri Obolensky, The
Bogomils, pp. 1-4; and Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee, chap.
VII and Appendix IV.
34. On Neo-Platonism see Thomas Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists: A
Study in the History of Hellenism (Cambridge, 1918). M. H. H. Wendt
(Christentum und Dualismus) argues that Judaism and Christianity were both
influenced by dualism but excluded the absolute opposition of good and
evil. See also the excellent study by Simone Pfctrement, Le Dualisme chez
Platon, les gnostiques et les manicheens.
35. A few excerpts from Gnostic texts are translated in Ray C. Petry,
A History of Christianity, pp. 85-90. More are in Robert M. Grant, Gnos¬
ticism: A Source Book. See also Grant’s Gnosticism and Early Christianity,
and Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion.
36. Brief translations from sources illustrating Marcion’s doctrines are in
Petry, History of Christianity, p. 89. Short discussions are in Runciman,
Medieval Manichee, pp. 8-10, and Jonas, Gnostic Religion, chap. VI; see also
Robert S. Wilson, Marcion; and E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence.
37. In a polemic against the Cathars in the early thirteenth century,
Durand of Huesca called them, among other things, “moderni Marchionite”
(Christine Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-cathare, pp. 34, 239, 303).
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch) 643

38. Translated excerpts illustrating Mani’s teaching are in Petry, History

of Christianity, pp. 90-94. Short accounts are in Runciman, Medieval
Manichee, pp. 12-17; Obolensky, The Bogomils, chap. I; and Jonas, Gnostic
Religion, chap. IX.
39. See No. 2, n. 1, and Runciman, Medieval Manichee, pp. 4, 17-18.
40. Short accounts are in Runciman, Medieval Manichee, pp. 21-25, and
Obolensky, The Bogomils, pp. 48-52 and passim.
41. A short account is given in C. A. Scott, “Priscillianism,” Encyclo¬
paedia of Religion and Ethics, X, 336-38. See also E. C. Babut, Priscillien
et le Priscillienisme.
42. A religious work used by Paulicians is translated in F. C. Conybeare,
The Key of Truth. Short accounts are in Runciman, Medieval Manicheer
chap. Ill, and Obolensky, The Bogomils, chap. II. See also n. 46, below.
43. Runciman, Medieval Manichee, pp. 27-31.
44. See No. 40, n. 3.
45. Runciman, Medieval Manichee, p. 46.
46. A recent study of the sources is Nina Garsoian’s The Paulician
Heresy. She concludes that there were two groupings of Paulicians—in
Armenia and in the Byzantine Empire—representing the two doctrinal tra¬
ditions, but she emphatically denies that Manichaean doctrines had a sig¬
nificant place in either. The traces of dualism among the Paulicians are
interpreted either as a product of internal development or as a relatively late
influence from extremists among the Byzantine iconoclasts.
47. On the Bogomils see Obolensky, The Bogomils:; Runciman, Medieval
Manichee, chaps. IV-V; and H. C. Puech and Andre Vaillant, Le Traite
contre les Bogomiles de Cosmos le Pretre. Borst, pp. 66-71, has a concise
summary based on these and other studies, with independent judgment on
certain critical points. See also n. 73, below. The Bogomils have been the
subject of recent works published in Eastern European languages, some of
which are reviewed in “Le Probleme des Bogomiles,” in [Yugoslav] National
Committee for Historical Studies, Ten Years of Yugoslav Historiography,
pp. 180-91; see also the comments on the Bogomil church in Bosnia in
Christine Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare inedit, pp. 34-37. The valuable
survey by Ivan Dujcev, “I Bogomili nei paesi slavi e la loro storia,” in
Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura,
*

Quaderno LXII (1964): UOriente cristiano nella storia della civilta, pp. 619-
41, reached us too late to be utilized. It should be consulted on points
mentioned here.*

48. For the early history of Bulgaria, see Steven Runciman, The First
Bulgarian Empire; see also his Medieval Manichee, pp. 63-66, and Obo¬
lensky, The Bogomils, chap. III.
49. Obolensky, The Bogomils, pp. 72-79, 84-93, 101-10.
50. Runciman, Medieval Manichee, pp. 87-91; Obolensky, The Bogomilsr
pp. 59-60, 68-70, 79-84.
51. Puech and Vaillant, Le Traite contre les Bogomiles, p. 310.
644 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)
52. The first meaning is preferred by Obolensky, The Bogomils, p. 117,
n. 4, and pp. 119-20. The others are given by Puech and Vaillant, Le Trait4
contre les Bogomiles, pp. 27, 282-83.
53. On date and place, see Obolensky, The Bogomils, pp. 117-20, 137-
43, 151-56, 167. Borst (pp. 67-68) agrees with Obolensky on the date given
here as against the earlier one proposed by Puech and Vaillant (Le Traite
contre les Bogomiles, pp. 285-89).
54. Tfris is the treatise published in French translation by Puech and
Vaillant as Le Traite contre les Bogomiles. There is a short excerpt from
it in English translation in Petry, History of Christianity, pp. 342-43. The
work of Cosmas is summarized in Runciman, Medieval Manichee, pp. 73-
74, and Obolensky, The Bogomils, pp. 117-38.
55. On the question of whether Christ or the devil was the older, see
Obolensky, The Bogomils, p. 122, and Puech and Vaillant, Le Traite contre les
Bogomiles, pp. 190-92; see also the Cathars* version of this relationship in
Nos. 37, 38, and 50, n. 24.
56. On early Bogomil organization, see Obolensky, The Bogomils, pp.
133-36; for the division between “Perfect” and “believers,” ibid., pp. 214-17.
57. Ibid., p. 138.
58. Runciman (Medieval Manichee, pp. 88-90) considers the Bogomils to
be the product of Paulician ideas fused with Gnostic teachings transmitted
through the Messalians. According to Obolensky (The Bogomils, pp. Ill,
115, 118, 138-40), Bogomil himself developed a personal synthesis of Pauli¬
cian and Messalian doctrines, influenced by orthodox Christianity. Puech
and Vaillant (Le Traite contre les Bogomiles, pp. 310-25) say that preceding
heresies do not suffice to explain Bogomilism and, although it owes some¬
thing to the Paulicians, it was not influenced by the Messalians; there are
new elements in Bogomilism (ibid., p. 340). Borst (p. 68, n. 12, and p. 71)
attributes it to a mixture of renewed Christian zeal with dualistic ideas, in
which Bogomil’s personal “crystallization” of experience was most important.
59. Runciman, Medieval Manichee, pp. 69-70; Obolensky, The Bogomils,
pp. 174-88, 197-201, 219-29.
60. The chief twelfth-century source for Bogomilism, The Dogmatic
Panoply of Euthymius Zigabenus, is summarized in Runciman, Medieval
Manichee, pp. 74-79; and in Obolensky, The Bogomils, pp. 205-19. On the
Bogomil hierarchy, see Puech and Vaillant, Le Trait4 contre les Bogomiles,
pp. 237-43.
61. Obolensky, The Bogomils, p. 154, n. 2; Puech and Vaillant, Le Traite
contre les Bogomiles, pp. 129-31. Two apocryphal pieces transmitted by
the Bogomils to the Cathars are translated in No. 56, with citation of addi¬
tional studies.
62. The problems posed by the evidence of both absolute and mitigated
dualism in Balkan sects have been variously resolved. Runciman (Medieval
Manichee, pp. 79, 88-89, 91) thinks that absolute dualism was Bogomil's
original teaching, mitigated dualism a somewhat later innovation by a priest,
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch) 645
Jeremiah. Obolensky {The Bogomils, pp. 123-25; 162, n. 4; 202) sees
absolute dualism as Paulician, mitigated dualism as the creed of Bogomil.
Hans Soderberg (La Religion des Cathares, chaps. V and VI, and pp. 269-70)
argues that absolute dualism among the Bogomils resulted from Paulician
influence, while mitigated dualism was transmitted to them under Gnostic
influences surviving from antiquity.
63. See Nos. 23 and 24.
64. Runciman, Medieval Manichee, chap. V; Obolensky, The Bogomils,
p. 229, chap. VI, and Appendix IV.
65. Studies in point are cited by Russell, “Interpretations of Medieval
Heresy,” MS, XXV (1963), 35-41. See also Borislav Primov, “Medieval
Bulgaria and the Dualistic Heresies in Western Europe,” Etudes historiques
a Voccasion du Xle CongrSs international des sciences historiques, Stock¬
holm, aout I960 (Sofia, 1960), pp. 79-106, as cited in RHE, LV (1960),
1083-84.
66. On the problem posed by lack of evidence of the filiation of sects and
the importance of comparison of doctrines, see Antoine Dondaine, “Nou-
velles Sources de l’histoire doctrinale du neo-manicheisme au moyen age,”
RSPT, XXVIII (1939), 465-88, esp. 465-69; and the same author’s Un Traite
%

neo-manicheen du XIIIe siecle, pp. 52-57.

67. The Bogomils, pp. 18, 19, 21.
68. The Paulician Heresy, chap. V and p. 233.
69. La Religion des Cathares, pp. 33, 267-68.
70. For example, Lucie Varga, “Les Cathares sont-ils des neo-manicheens
ou des n£o-gnostiques?” RHR, CXX (1939), 175-93, esp. 175-83; and the
same author’s “Un Probl&me de methode en histoire religieuse,” Revue de
synthese, XI (1936), 133-43 (a review of Guiraud, Histoire de VInquisition,
Vol. I).
71. Paul Alphandery, “Traces de manicheisme dans le moyen age latin
(VTe-XIIc stecle),” RHPR, IX (1929), 451-67; Renato Esnault, “Tracce
ereticali nel medio evo francese,” Religio, XIV (1938), 18-53; Eugeni!
Anichkof, “Les Survivances manicheennes en pays slave et en Occident,”
Revue des etudes slaves, VIII (1928), 203-26. Cf. Romania, LVI (1930),
526-57, and LVIII (1932), 274-86, for criticism of his work by Mme Myrra
Lat-Borodine and his reply.
72. Varga, “Les Cathares sont-ils des n6o-manicheens?” RHR, CXX
(1939), 183-93.
73. “Catharisme medieval et Bogomilisme,” in Convegno “Volta” di
scienze morale, storiche e filologiche, 27 maggio-1 giugno 1956, Accademia
nazionale dei Lincei, Atti, 8th ser., XII (1957), 56-84. This article also con¬
tains useful bibliographical comments on Bogomilism.
74. Ibid,, pp. 56-62.
75. Ibid,, pp. 62-74.
76. Ibid., pp. 77-82.
77. Ibid., pp. 82-83, citing Leonard, “Remarques sur les ‘Sectes,’” Ecole-
646 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)
pratique des hautes etudes, Section des sciences religieuses, Annuaire, 1955-
1956 (Paris, 1956).
78. Die Katharer, pp. 65-66.
79. Ibid., p. 71.
80. Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 205-15.
81. Medieval History, pp. 456-57.
82. Russell, Dissent and Reform, pp. 5-17 and passim.
83. These are the areas mentioned in the sources translated in Nos. 1-6.
In other sources there are references to heresy in Ratisbon (late tenth cen¬
tury), Mainz (1012), Verona (before 1048), and “in Greek lands.” We have
omitted mention of the supposed evidence of dualism in the profession of
faith of Gerbert of Aurillac in 991 for reasons stated in the introduction to
No. 32; and, as explained in the introduction to No. 17, we cannot accept
the evidence for heresy at Liege in the eleventh century. The best discussion
of eleventh-century heresies is Ilarino da Milano’s “Le eresie popolari,” in
Studi Gregoriani, II, 43-89. See also Rorst, pp. 73-80. Antoine Dondaine
(“L’Origine de Ph6resie medievale,” RSCI, VI [1952], 47-48) confines his
survey to evidence of alleged Bogomil influence. We have not seen Ernst
Werner’s Die gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen der Klosterreform im 11. Jahr-
hundert, cited by Grundmann, Ketzergeschichte, p. 9, n. 1. The latter dis¬
cusses eleventh-century heresy on pp. 8-11.
84. Dondaine (“L’Origine de l’heresie medievale,” RSCI, IV [1952], 53-
54) argues that the diversity of social classes represented in these sects shows
the spread of Bogomilism rather than spontaneous local development from
social and economic conditions. Differentiation between heretical ideas as
understood in aristocratic and clerical circles and the “unchristian and
ascetic tenets accepted among the peasantry is urged by Ernst Werner
“natapnvoi-patarini: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Sektengeschichte des
11. Jahrhunderts,” in Von Mittelalter zur Neuzeit, pp. 404-19, esp. 413-14).
85. The heresy of Vilgard (No. 1) does not belong in these categories, for
its alleged origin in literary studies is almost unique. Anticlericalism is plain
in some instances of heresy; in others clerics were the leaders in a searoh
for a higher spirituality attained through knowledge (see No. 3).
86. See No. 2, n. 1, and No. 6, n. 9.
87. Works in which the trial and punishment of heretics in the Middle
Ages are discussed are: Julien Havet, “L’Heresie et le bras seculier au moyen
age jusqu’au treizieme siScle,” DEC, XLI (1880), 488-517, 570-607 (also in
his (Euvres completes, II [Paris, 1896], 117-80); Henri Maillet, UEglise et
la repression sanglante de Vheresie; Maisonneuve, Etudes sur les origines
de VInquisition; Hermann Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen im 11. und 12.
Jahrhundert; and G. G. Coulton, The Death Penalty for Heresy from 1184
to 1921.
88. Pp. 212-86. He based this study on his “Osservazioni critiche su
alcune questioni fondamentali riguardanti le origini e i caratteri delle eresie
medioevali,” in “Miscellanea di studi storica, pubblicata in memoria di
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch) 647
Pietro Fedele,” Archivio della deputazione Romana di storia patria, new
ser., LXVII (1944), 97-151.
89. “Nouvelles Sources,” RSPT, XXVIII (1939), 466-67.
90. Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare en Italie, II: Le ‘Tractatus de heret-
ids’ d’Anselme d’Alexandrie, O.P.; III: Catalogue de la hi6rcharchie cathare
d’ltalie,” AFP, XX (1950), 267-68.
91. “L’Origine de I’h6r6sie medtevale,” RSCI, VI (1952), 47-78.
92. See n. 54, above.
93. Morghen, “Movimenti religiosi popolari nel periodo della riforma
della chiesa,” in Relazione del X Congresso, pp. 333-56; and the same
author’s “II cosidetto neo-manicheismo occidental del secolo XI,” in Con-
vegno “Volta” di scienze morale, storiche e filologiche, 27 maggio-1 giugno
1956, Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Atti, 8th ser., XII (1957), 84-104.
94. See n. 73, above.
95. “Catharisme medievale et Bogomilisme” (as cited in n. 73, above)
pp. 77-83. Cf. the conclusions stated in 1955 by Grundmann, “Eresie e
nuovi ordini religiosi,” in Relazione del X Congresso, pp. 367-68; and in
1953 by Borst, pp. 90-91.
96. On the Pataria, see S. M. Brown, “Movimenti politico-religiosi a
Milano ai tempi della Pataria,” Archivio storico Lombardo, 6th ser., LVIII
(1931), 227-78; Cinzio Violante, La Pataria milanese e la riforma ecclesias-
tica, I: Le premesse (1045-1057). Further bibliography in Borst, p. 82, n. 4;
Grundmann, Ketzergeschichte, p. 14, n. 7.
97. Landulf’s chronicle is cited in No. 5; see Bk. Ill, cc. xviii, xxv. On the
name Patarini, used for members of the Pataria, see No. 27, n. 3. The term
falsi Cathari, used by Landulf to refer to them, has led to speculation about
but no proof of relationships between them and the twelfth-century dualists
(Borst, p. 82, n. 5).
98. See No. 7.
99. Charles Molinier, “L’H6r6sie et la persecution au XIe si&cle,” Revue
des Pyrentes, VI (1894), 30-31.
100. Mentioned and denied by Morghen, “Movimenti religiosi popolari,’*
in Relazione del X Congresso, pp. 355-56.
101. Die Katharer, pp. 80-81. Cf. Grundmann, Religiose Bewegungent
p. 483; Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresi popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, p.
83-84.
102. Works in English on the history of the Inquisition (see n. 187, below)
mention most of the incidents, but new discoveries sometimes make those
works outdated. Russell, Dissent and Reform, offers the most complete
survey. Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, selects some incidents
to discuss in connection with his particular thesis. For the first half of the
twelfth century see also the works of Valvekins and Suraci cited in n. 29,
above; also Grundmann, “Eresie e nuovi ordini religiosi,” in Relazione del
X Congresso, pp. 357-402; Raoul Manselli’s Studi sulle eresie del secolo
XII, also his “Per la storia dell’eresia nel secolo XII,” BISIAM, LXVII
648 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)
(1955), 189-264; and Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen, pp. 30-106. Studies
of particular incidents are cited in notes and introductions to Nos. 8-19.
103. See No. 8.
104. See Nos. 11, 12, 14.
105. See No. 13. James Feams, “Peter von Bruis und die religiose Be-
wegungen des 12. Jahrhunderts,” Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, XLVIII
(1966), 311-35, was not available to us in time to be utilized.
106. See Nos. 9, 10.
107. See No. 18.
108. See No. 19.
109. See Nos. 15, 16, 17. Heretics were also reported in Italy at Florence
and Orvieto in 1117 and 1125 (Borst, p. 85) and at Li&ge (1135), where they
were said to reject marriage and infant baptism and deny the value of
prayers for the dead (Paul Fredericq, Corpus documentorum inquisitionis
haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae, I, 30). Some heretics in Brittany about
1145 had unorthodox views about infant baptism, the resurrection of bodies,
relationships with women, and the nature of the Church, but whether these
derived from the teaching of Henry, or of Peter of Bruys, or of Eudo, or
were independently formed, is not clear: see Manselli, “Per la storia dell’ere-
sia,” BISIAM, LXVII (1955), 235-44; Grundmann, “Eresie e nuovi ordini
religiosi,” in Relazione del X Congresso, p. 370; and Borst, p. 5, n. 10.
110. On the apostolic ideal, see Ernest W. McDonnell, “The vita apos¬
tolical Church History, XXIV (1953), 15-31; Pierre Mandonnet, Saint
Dominic and His Work, trans. by Sister Mary Benedicta Larkin, pp. 272-78;
Ellen S. Davison, Forerunners of St. Francis, and Other Studies, pp. 220-28;
Grundmann, Religiose Bewegungen, pp. 11-21; M. H. Vicaire, Saint Dominic
and His Times, trans. by Kathleen Pond, pp. 73-76.
111. See No. 15, part A.
112. See the introduction to No. 15.
113. See No. 20, n. 2. The literature on the Cathars is enormous. Some
of it is cited in notes and bibliography in this volume, but we know of no
survey in English of the Catharist movement as a whole which takes ad¬
vantage of recent European studies. Borst’s Die Katharer, is by far the best
treatment of that heresy and has comments on the sources and literature,
pp. 1-58. Luciano Sommariva, “Studi recenti sulle eresie medievali (1939-
1952),” RSI, LXIV (1952), 237-68, has an excellent critical discussion. See
also Daniel Walther, “A Survey of Recent Research on the Albigensian
Cathari,” Church History, XXXIV (1965), 146-77. Short surveys of Cathar-
ism will be found in Raoul Manselli, “Profilo dell’eresia medievale (Catari e
Valdesi),” Humanitas, I (1950), 384-96; and Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie
medioevali (sec. XI-XV),” in Grande antol. filos., IV, 1601-2, with extracts
from sources in Italian translation, pp. 1625-46, and bibliography, pp.
1646-68; and Eugenio Dupre-Theseider, Introduzione alle eresie medievali
(Bologna, 1953). Russell, “Interpretations of Medieval Heresy,” MS, XXV
(1963), 25-53, names many of the studies of the heresy in canvassing his
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)
special topic. See also the discussion of the medieval sources, pp. 56-67.
114. The date (1144-1145) of this episode has been challenged; see the
introduction to No. 17.
115. See No. 16.
116. See p. 16.
117. See No. 24.
118. “H&resie et croisade au XII* stecle,” RHE, XLIX (1954), 855-72.
On the question of Catharist doctrine in the Rhineland at this time—whether
absolute or mitigated dualism—see No. 39, n. 3. That returning crusaders
brought to Germany ancient Gnostic practices from the East is suggested
also by Karl Heisig, in “Ein gnostische Sekte im abendlandischen Mittel-
alter,” Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, XVI (1964), 271-74.
119. Eckbert (Sermones n.2, in Migne, PL, CXCV, 19) declared that he
had heard of heretics concealing their full doctrines from converts for as
long as fifteen years out of fear of betrayal.
120. On that term as a synonym for “heretic,” see No. 28, n. 6.
121. Councils of the Church had little to say about heresy beyond con¬
demning it. The Council of Toulouse (1119) denounced certain doctrines,
probably those of Henry of Le Mans. Its words were repeated in canon 23
of the Second Lateran Council (1139): Mansi, Concilia, XXI, 225-77.
Records of the Council of Pisa (1135) do not mention heresy, although
Henry was haled before it (see No. 11, part B). The general council at
Rheims (1148) under Pope Eugene III sent Eudo to prison and some of his
followers to the stake (see No. 18), and anathematized heretics in Gascony
and Provence without specifying their doctrines (Mansi, Concilia, XXI, 718).
122. See the works cited in n. 87, above.
123. See No. 14.
124. A sketch of twelfth-century heresy in Italy will be found in Lea,
History of the Inquisition, I, 114-17, and II, 191-96, but neither that sketch
nor the discussion in Guiraud, Htstoire de VInquisition, Vol. II, chaps. XIV-
XV, had the advantage of recent discoveries such as those of Father Don-
daine, cited in Nos. 23 and 24. Maisonneuve, pp. 146-49, 155-56, 169-73,
is useful. Best of all is Borst, pp. 96-120, with a good bibliography. Ilarino
da Milano, UEresia di Ugo Speroni nella confutazione del Maestro Vacario,
chap. XVII, has an excellent account of Italian sects in the later twelfth
century.
125. See No. 21, taken from the definitive study by Ilarino da Milano,
UEresia di Ugo Speroni, and references cited there; also No. 45, part B.
126. Davison, Forerunners of St. Francis, chap. V, discusses the Humil-
iati. See also the works cited in No. 22.
127. The Amoldists are not represented in any of the translations in this
volume. See Davison, Forerunners of St. Francis, chap. IV* The best discus¬
sion is in Ilarino da Milano, “La ‘Manifestatio heresis catarorum quam fecit
Bonacursus* secondo il cod. Ottob. lat. 136 della Biblioteca Vaticana,”
Aevum, XII (1938), 301-24; summarized in his UEresia di Ugo Speroni,
pp. 444-53.
650 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)
128. See Louis I. Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform
Movements, pp. 240-302. Further references are given in No. 26.
129. Albert Lecoy de la Marche, Anecdotes historiques, legendes et apolo¬
gues tirees du recueil inedit d*Etienne de Bourbon, dominicain du XIII«
,s/ec/e, pp. 280-81. The practice of an annual communion was later noted
among the Waldenses, and “Tortolani” may refer to them. The “Rebaptizati”
developed within the Waldensian movement; see No. 37. On the "Josephini,”
see Ilarino da Milano, VEresia di Ugo Speroni, pp. 457-60, and No. 23,
n. 30.
130. On Waldes and the origin of the Poor of Lyons, or Waldenses, see
pp. 34-35. The story of the schism is told in No. 45, parts B and C; of the
movement of reconciliation in No. 36.
131. The rest of this paragraph is based on the narratives in Nos. 23 and
24, and the works there cited.
132. See No. 23.
133. These sects are enumerated in No. 51.
134. See No. 56.
135. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines Chronica, in MGH SS, XXI1II, 846.
136. See No. 20.
137. See, in addition to the works cited in n. 124, above, Luigi Fumi,
4T Paterini in Orvieto,” Archivio storico italiano, 3d ser., XXII (1875), 52-81;
and G. R. Ristori, “I Paterini in Firenze nella prima meta del secolo XIII,”
Rivista storica-critica delle scienze teologiche, I (1905), 10-11.
138. See No. 25.
139. See, for example. Nos. 51 and 54.
140. Canon 27 of this council condemned heretics, who, under the names
of Cathars, Patarines, Publicans, and others, were infecting Gascony and
the regions of Albi and Toulouse, as well as the mercenary soldiers who
were the scourge of the Midi. Spiritual rewards were offered to all persons
who, under the leadership of bishops, would take up arms against the ex¬
communicates (Mansi, Concilia, XXII, 209).
141. Ibid., XXII, 476-78. The decretal is discussed in Maisonneuve, pp.
151-55.
142. References are collected in Borst, p. 104, n. 2.
143. Mansi, Concilia, XXII, 955ff. Charles Edward Smith’s Innocent III
deals with Innocent III as an advocate of reform but without reference to
heresy. Three volumes of Achille Luchaire’s Innocent III are most useful:
Rome et Vltalie; La Croisade des Albigeois (3d ed., 1911); and Le Concile
de Latran et la reforme de I’Eglise.
144. There is an extensive literature on heresy in southern France. All
the histories of the Inquisition (see n. 185, below) discuss the situation there.
See also the works cited in n. 149, below. Too late for us to utilize it fully
or even refer to it in more than a few places in these notes appeared the
work of Christine Thouzellier, Catharisme et v aide isme en Languedoc d la
fin du XIIe et au debut du XlIIe sidcle. Let it be said here that this work
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch) 651

should be consulted in the investigation of almost any aspect of medieval

heresy or its repression and particularly for the literature of controversy in
the period from 1170 to 1225. The scholarship and insight of the author,
as well as the abundant documentation, make this an indispensable study.
145. This paragraph rests chiefly on Nos. 30-35. On the name “Waldes”
—instead of ‘‘Peter Waldo,” which is common in English usage but is not
supported by the sources—see No. 30, n. 2. There is a large literature on the
Waldenses, catalogued in Augusto Armand Hugon and Giovanni Gonnet,
Bibliografia valdese, which is supplemented by Gonnet, “Un decennio di
studi,” Protestantesimo, XVII (1962), 209-39. Older works in English include
Emilio Comba’s History of the Waldenses of Italy from Their Origin to the
Reformation, trans. by T. E. Comba; and H. C. Vedder, “Origin and Early
Teaching of the Waldenses,” American Journal of Theology, IV (1900),
465-89. See also the works listed in the introduction to No. 30. Petry,
History of Christianity, pp. 350-54, has excerpts in translation from several
documents, including the one translated in our No. 32.
146. Only in the nineteenth century did the claim of a more ancient
origin for the Waldenses yield to proof that they arose no earlier than the
preaching of Waldes. Formerly, they themselves had traced their ancestry
to St. Peter. It had also been asserted that they dated from the days of
St. Claudius of Turin (d. 839); see Russell, “Interpretations of Medieval
Heresy,” MS, XXV (1963), 28-30.
147. See No. 46.
148. See No. 38, n. 1.
149. The literature on the Albigenses forms a substantial part of that on
the whole Catharist heresy. Studies in English include H. J. Warner, The
Albigensian Heresy, Vol. I; Edmond G. A. Holmes, The Albigensian or
Catharist Heresy: A Story and a Study (London, 1925); and descriptions of
the heresy in histories of the Inquisition (see n. 185, below). Zoe Olden-
bourg, Massacre at Montsegur, trans. by Peter Green, chap. II, has a sym¬
pathetic account of them. It is close in spirit to publications produced by
participants in the “Neo-Catharist” movement now active in southern France
under the leadership of D6odat Roche and Rene Nelli (the group is the
subject of a story in Time, LXXVII, No. 18 [April 28, 1961]). They are
responsible for many special studies; see Pierre de Berne-Lagarde, Biblio¬
graphic du catharisme languedocien, and Walther, “Recent Research,”
Church History, XXXIV (1965), 146-77. Sommariva, “Studi recenti,” RSI,
LXIV (1952), 237-68, lists other works produced in the Midi. The Albigenses
have also been the subject of sympathetically written novels, for example:
Humphrey Slater, The Heretics (New York, 1947); Hannah Closs, High
Are the Mountains (New York, 1959) and Deep Are the Valleys (New York,
1963); Zoe Oldenbourg, Destiny of Fire, trans. by Peter Green (New York,
1961), and Cities of the Plain, trans. by Anne Carter (New York, 1963).
See also the works on Catharism mentioned in n. 113, above.
150. See No. 23, n. 12.
652 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)

15 1. See No. 29.

152. See No. 29, n. 28.
153. See Luchaire, Innocent III: La Croisade des Albigeois,
154. On this famous experience, out of which was to come the inspiration
for the Dominican order, see the studies of Marie-Humbert Vicaire, in
Larkin's translation of the work of Mandonnet, cited in n. 110, above; also
his Saint Dominic and other works cited in No. 36, n. 1.
155. See No. 36.
156. See the discussion of polemical literature on pp. 59-62.
157. For the early years of these orders see the works cited in nn. 110
and 154, above, and Raphael M. Huber, A Documented History of the
Franciscan Order: From the Birth of St, Francis to the Division of the
Order under Leo X (1182-1517) (Washington, 1944).
158. The words are those of Bishop Fulk of Toulouse, on establishing
Dominic and his associates in his diocese (Vicaire, Saint Dominic, p, 171;
F. Balme, P. Lelaidier, and A. I. Collomb, Cartulaire ou Histoire diploma¬
tique de Saint Dominique, I, 515).
159. A brief history of the Albigensian Crusade is Austin P. Evans’s
“The Albigensian Crusade,” in Kenneth M. Setton et al, A History of the
Crusades, Vol. II, chap. VIII. See also Hoffman Nickerson, The Inquisition;
Oldenbourg, Massacre at Montsegur\ Warner, The Albigensian Heresy,
Vol. II. Full-scale studies are Luchaire’s Innocent III: La Croisade des
Albigeois, and Pierre Belperron’s La Croisade contre les Albigeois et Vunion
du Languedoc d la France (1209-1249),
160. In the title affixed to the canon the heretics are called Piphli, a
name which became prevalent a few years later. In the text they are called
only Manichaeans (Mansi, Concilia, XXI, 843).
161. Havet (“L’Heresie et le bras seculier,” BEC, XLI [1880], 509-10),
questions the authenticity of this canon, at least in respect of the penalty of
branding, but there are precedents for that punishment (see Maisonneuve,
pp. 55, 111) and it was inflicted on heretics in England a few years later
(see No. 40).
162. Sermones tredecim contra Catharos, in Migne, PL, CXCV, 11-98.
163. Ibid,, v.xi, col. 34.
164. Letters of Pope Alexander III and Louis VII, king of France and
brother of the archbishop, are published in Fredericq, Corpus, I, 37-39.
165. Paul Bonenfant, “Un Clerc cathare on Lotharingie au milieu du XIIe
siecle,” MA, LXIX (1963), 271-80.
166. Fredericq, Corpus, I, 45.
167. See No. 40.
168. See No. 41.
169. See No. 42, also Caesarius of Heisterbach Dialogus miraculorum
v.xviii; ix.xii (I, 296; II, 175-76). The dates of the events he speaks about
are uncertain.
170. Emile Chenon, “L’HerSsie a la Charit6-sur-Loire et les debuts de
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch) 653

requisition monastique dans la France du Nord au XIIIe siecle,” Nouvelle

revue historique du droit frangais et etranger, XLI (1917), 299-345; Borst,
p. 103.
171. See No. 43.
172. Only part of the teaching of Joachim of Flora is mentioned here.
Excerpts from sources illustrating his doctrines are translated in Petry,
History of Christianity, pp. 473-77. See also the works cited in No. 44,
n. 10.
173. See No. 44.
174. Cohn, Pursuit of the Millennium, chaps. VII-VIII; Grundmann,
Ketzergeschichte, pp. 45-47, 52-58.
175. See No. 58.
176. In addition to the large numbers put to death during the Albigensian
Crusade, about two hundred Perfect and their stubborn adherents perished
in one holocaust after the Catharist refuge of Montsegur was captured in
1244, and there was a steady attrition of their numbers by the action of the
inquisitorial courts. It may be noted that the death penalty was imposed by
inquisitors in a relatively small number of cases, comprising those who were
impenitent heretics or who had relapsed into heresy after once abjuring it.
Imprisonment was more common, and for most believers who recanted the
penalty was to make pilgrimages and to wear yellow crosses sewed on their
clothing. Statistics on inquisitorial penalties are scarce but see the analysis
of sentences between 1246 and 1257 in Yves Dossat, Les Crises de rInqui¬
sition toulousaine au XIIle siecle (1233-1273), pp. 247-68; see also No. 55,
introduction, n. 3.
177. The last activities of Catharist teachers in Languedoc are studied in
J. M. Vidal’s “Les demiers ministres de l’albigeisme en Languedoc,” RQH,
LXXIX (1906), 57-107; and his “Doctrine et morale des demiers ministres
albigeois,” RQH, LXXXV (1909), 357-409; LXXXVI (1909), 5-48. See also
Borst, pp. 135-42. Our statement refers to Catharism as a vital religious
force. Traces of its influence were to be seen long afterward. Nelli (“Survi-
vances du Catharisme,” in Spirituality de Vheresie, pp. 207-24) finds that
Catharism influenced the Spiritual Franciscans and that Protestants in the
Midi were also affected many years later. He notes other bits of evidence
for the survival of Catharist ideas down to the twentieth-century revival of
the “Neo-Cathars” in France (see n. 149, above). The appearance of Catharist
traits in central Europe during the Reformation is mentioned in Claus-
Peter Clasen, “Medieval Heresies in the Reformation,” Church History,
XXXII (1963), 406-7.
178. There are many studies of heresy and the Inquisition in various
localities in Italy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries but no com¬
prehensive, over-all account. Guiraud, Hist'oire de VInquisition, Vol. II,
chaps. XVI-XXII, gives a survey of the situation in Italy; see also Lea,
History of the Inquisition, Vol. II, chap. IV.
179. See No. 27; also Guiraud, Histoire de Vlnquisition, Vol. II, chap. IX.
654 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)

180. S. H. Thomson, “Pre-Hussite Heresy in Bohemia,’' English Historical

Review, XLVIII (1933), 23-42; Giovanni Gonnet, “II movimento valdese in
Europa secondo le piu recenti ricerche (sec. XII-XVI),” Bolletino della
Societd di studi v aidesi, C (1956), 21-30; Gonnet, “Waldensia,” RHPR,
XXXIII (1953), 202-54, esp. 218ff., reviewing recent studies of Waidensian
history to the sixteenth century.
181. They formed a union with the Hussites of Bohemia and at the Synod
of Chanforans (1532) associated with Swiss Protestant groups. Although
fiercely persecuted in several periods thereafter, they survive in Europe and
the United States today.
182. McDonnell, Beguines and Beghards, pp. 430-55, 488-504.
183. See n. 174, above.
184. See No. 55, IV; also David S. Muzzey, The Spiritual Franciscans;
and Huber, Documented History of the Franciscan Order, pp. 19Iff.
185. See R. R. Betts, “Correnti religiose nazionali ed ereticali dalla fine
del secolo XIV alia meta del XV,” in Relazione del X Congresso, pp. 485-
513. Surveys of medieval heresy such as those of Ilarino da Milano (“Le
eresie medioevali,” in Grande antol filos. IV, 1599-1689) and Grundmann
(Ketzergeschichte, pp. 49-66), carry their story into the fifteenth century,
with valuable citations of the literature. See also works listed in Kulscar,
Eretnekmozgalmak, esp. pp. 24Iff. Excerpts from documents on Church
reform in the later Middle Ages are translated in Petry, History of Chris¬
tianity, pp. 503-43. Reformist writings are translated also in Matthew Spinka,
Advocates of Reform from Wyclif to Erasmus. Older translations of works
of Hus and Wyclif are listed in Clarissa P. Farrar and Austin P. Evans,
Bibliography of English Translations from Medieval Sources. On Hus, see
also Matthew Spinka, trans., John Hus at the Council of Constance; and
Spinka’s John Hus’ Concept of the Church. The work of Gordon Leff,
Heresy in the Later Middle Ages, appeared as this volume was going to
press. It should be consulted on all heretical movements after the mid¬
thirteenth century; the Prologue (I, 1-47) has perceptive comment on the
nature of heresy, its influence, and the Church’s reaction to it.
186. Maisonneuve, pp. 236, 243-57, 275; Christine Thouzellier, “La
Repression de l’h6resie et les debuts de l’lnquisition,” in Augustin Fliche,
V. Martin, et ah, Htstoire de VEglise, X, 300-10.
187. Works in English on the Inquisition vary greatly in quality. Lea’s
History of the Inquisition, the pioneer work, is still most useful despite some
bias against the Church; there is a one-volume abridgement by Margaret
Nicolson. George G. Coulton, The Inquisition, and the same author’s Inqui¬
sition and Liberty, are very critical of the Church. Vacandard, The Inqui¬
sition, presents a moderate Catholic viewpoint. Other works in English that
may be cited are Arthur S. Turberville, Mediaeval Heresy and the Inqui¬
sition; Alan L. Maycock, The Inquisition from Its Establishment to the
Great Schism; Warner, The Albigenshtn Heresy, Vol II; Nickerson, The
Inquisition; and Guiraud, The Mediaeval Inquisition, trans. by E. C. Mes-
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch) 655

senger. Some of the methods of the Inquisition are illustrated in Austin

P. Evans, “Hunting Subversion in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, XXXIII
(1958), 1-22.
188. See, for example, No. 54.
189. See the studies of this literature by Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’in-
quisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 85-194.
190. See, for example, Nos. 51, 54, 55.
191. This ceases to be true, however, in tracts prepared in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries by jurists, whose interest was in legal procedure
rather than in the description of heresy.
192. See No. 20, n. 2. On this and other names, see also Borst, pp. 240-53.
193. See No. 57, passim; No. 28, n. 6; p. 130; and No. 38, § 14. The
Perfect were also called induti, vestiti, from the practice of wearing special
garb; see No. 38. § 19.
194. See, for example, The Summa contra haereticos Ascribed to Prae-
positinus of Cremona, p. 4 (full citation under “Prevostin” in bibliography).
195. See No. 45, part C, § 23, and n. 39.
196. See n. 37, above.
197. See No. 40, n. 3.
198. See No. 27, n. 3.
199. See No. 23, n. 10; No. 24, § 1; also Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-
cathare, pp. 139, 175.
200. For this volume, the names of persons and places have been stand¬
ardized. At the first appearance of a name in the translations, a note will
comment on its occurrence in the sources.
201. See No. 23, nn. 10,21,55; No. 59, V, 1.
202. See No. 23, nn. 13, 23; No. 59, V, 1.
203. See No. 23, § 2(b), and nn. 26, 58.
204. See No. 51, §§ 14, 15.
205. See No. 45, n. 15.
206. See No. 60, part A.
207. Jean Guiraud, “Le consolamentum cathare,” RQH, new ser., XXXI
(1904), 74-112, and also his Histoire de Vlnquisition, Vol. I, chap. IV.
208. For those who had not received this power, it was useless to say
the Lord’s Prayer; see No. 60, part B, n. 38.
209. The rituals for the consolamentum are translated in No. 57.
210. Daily conduct was described to initiates during the consolamentum;
fasts are described in No. 54, § 7, and No. 55,1, 2.
211. Guiraud, Histoire de Vlnquisition, I, 144-45.
212. See No. 49, n. 15.
213. See No. 23, n. 10, and No. 54, § 6.
214. See No. 49 and No. 51, §§ 8, 10.
215. See No. 38, n. 17, on the degrees of complicity in heresy thus estab¬
lished.
216. Borst, p. 198.
656 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sketch)

217. See No. 57, introduction and n. 18.

218. See No. 49, n. 27.
219. See No. 57, introduction; also No. 55, I, 2.
220. See No. 55, I, 2.
221. For example: Guiraud, Histoire de VInquisition, 1, chap. VI; J. M.
Vidal, “Doctrine et morale des derniers ministres albigeois, RQH, LXXXVI
(1909), 47-48.
222. See No. 57 and No. 60, part A.
223. In defense of Catharist morality, see Paul Alphandery, Les ldees
morales chez les heterodoxes latins au debut du XIIIe siecle; and Olden-
bourg, Massacre at Montsegur, pp. 62-70. There is an analysis of Catharist
teaching on sexual relations and procreation in John T. Noonan, Jr., Contra¬
ception, pp. 179ff., esp. pp. 183-93.
224. The following paragraphs are based on the words of polemicists
against the Cathars, esp. No. 23, 35, 37-38, 47-51, 53-55, in which many
variations in detail will be found to qualify these general statements. Gui¬
raud, Histoire de Vlnquisition, Vol. I, chaps, II-VII, has details drawn from
inquisitorial records.
225. Our translations do not display all the variations in Catharist teach¬
ing. See, for example, the confession of heretics in Florence in 1229 printed
in Guiraud, Histoire de Vlnquisition, II, 456-57, in which Lucifer is depicted
as an angel deceived by the devil; he becomes the devil’s collaborator, but
being repentant, he wishes to allow men to be saved.
226. See No. 54, § 3, and n. 10.
227. See No. 51, §§11, 16, 18-23; and No. 59.
228. Many other conclusions have been expressed. The references in
Borst (passim) and his own comments (pp. 223-30) on the place of the
Cathars in the world of the Middle Ages are the best guide.
229. See p. 31.
230. See No. 46.
231. On these and other aspects of the early history of the Waldenses,
see Thouzellier, Catharisme et valdeisme, pp. 170-81.
232. Condemnation of Pope Sylvester I (314-335) for diverting the
Church from its proper course was not original with the Waldenses (Borst,
p. 215, n. 9). The Cathars also adopted this view; see No. 51, § 29, and
No. 25.
233. See No. 54, § 15 (c), and No. 55, II, 4.
234. See No. 54, §§ 10, 15 (a).
235. See Nos. 34, 35, 37, and 38, § 18.
236. See No. 52.
237. See pp. 63-64 on Waldensian literature.
238. See No. ,46, §§ 4, 15.
239. The foregoing is based on No. 55, II, 4 and 6, and the confession
cited in n. 10 there; also on the De pauperibus de Lugduno, in Dollinger,
Beitrdge zur Sektengeschichte, II, 92-97, and the treatise of David of Augs-
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sources) 657

burg (?), item xxvi of the list of polemics in the Appendix.

240. A Waldensian deacon confessing before the Inquisition spoke of the
reception of the Holy Spirit in ordination but compared the rite to that of
the Catholic Church rather than to the imposition of hands among the
Cathars (Dollinger, Beitrage, II, 112, 115).
241. See No. 40.
242. See No. 55, III.
243. On the name, see No. 27, n. 8. A distinction should be made be¬
tween the Beguins who are the subject here and the communities, generally
orthodox, which were called by the same name and had been forming in
northern Europe since the middle of the twelfth century: see p. 41, and
McDonnell, Beguines and Beghards.
244. See the works cited in n. 184, above, and in No. 55, IV, on the
Fraticelli, as well as for the content of the preceding paragraph.

SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF THE HERESIES

1. The characteristics of medieval annals and chronicles are discussed in

R. L. Poole, Chronicles and Annals: A Brief Outline of Their Origin and
Growth (Oxford, 1926), and T. F. Tout, The Study of Mediaeval Chronicles.
On medieval historical writing, see also Harry Elmer Barnes, A History of
Historical Writing (Norman, Okla., 1937), and James Westfall Thompson,
A History of Historical Writing (2 vols., New York, 1942).
2. For example, Peter of Bruys in southern France went unnoticed by
the chroniclers. Italian municipal chronicles of the late twelfth century say
very little of the heresies there; they give more information in connection
with the Inquisition. Heresy in Languedoc was reported outside that region
more often than in local annals.
3. Examples are the participation of the king of France in the investi¬
gation of heresy at Orleans (No. 3), and the condemnation of Eudo in 1148
by a council over which the pope presided (No. 18).
4. No. 19, part A.
5. John of Salisbury devotes much attention to the case of Gilbert de la
Porree at Rheims in 1148 but does not mention Eudo. For Otto, see his
The Two Cities and The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa.
6. See No. 38.
7. A few of their anecdotes were chosen here because they came from
personal experience or for their intrinsic interest (see No. 31, part B; No.
39; No. 42, part B). Although Map and other English authors supply some
of the narratives in this volume which connect magic, sorcery, or devil-
worship with heresy, it would be unjust to regard the English as empha¬
sizing this relationship. They only shared a popular viewpoint discernible
all through the Middle Ages, a viewpoint which was to be blown up into the
great witchcraft epidemics of early modern times (see the introduction to
No. 42).
658 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sources)

8. See No. 9.
9. See No. 20.
10. See No. 14, part B.
11. See the biographies of the great mendicant preachers mentioned on
p. 58. Luke, bishop of Tuy, is something of an exception. He included
remarks on the Albigenses in his biography of Isidore of Seville; see item
xvii (b) in the list of polemics in the Appendix.
12. See No. 6; No. 8, part A; No. 15, part A; No. 16; No. 17; No. 29.
13. One example is No. 14, part A.
14. See Nos. 12, 13, 21.
15. The only two papal letters translated here refer to the reconciliation
of Durand of Huesca (No. 36).
16. See, for example, the list of sources assembled in Borst, p. 104, n. 22.
17. See No. 46.
18. This coincided with the development of the art of preaching; see
Louis Bourgain, La Chaire jrangaise au XIIe siecle, d’apres les manuscrits
(Paris, 1879); A. Lecoy de la Marche, La Chaire frangaise au moyen age,
specialement au Xllle siecle, d’apres les manuscrits contemporains (Paris,
1886).
19. See n. 154 to the first part of this introduction.
20. See No. 36.
21. Numerous examples of this may be cited. See the Vita sancti Petri
martyris, in A A SS, April 29, HI, 697-704; Gerard of Fracheto, Vitae
fratrum ordinis praedicatorum, ed. by B. M. Reichert, pp. 236-38; Actus
beati Francisci et sociorum eius, ed. by Paul Sabatier, pp. 147-50; and
Sancti Antonii de Padua vitae duae, ed. by L. de Kerval, pp. 40-42, 219-22.
See also Mary Purcell, Saint Anthony and His Times, and Antoine Dondaine,
“Saint Pierre Martyr,” AFP, XXIII (1953), 66-162.
22. Exceptions which are special cases are the bishop’s discourse at
Arras, 1025 (see No. 4), and the sermons of Eckbert of Sehonau (see item
iv, Appendix), written as a polemical guide for preachers.
23. Homilia xix, in Migne, PL, CLV, 2010-13. He attacks “Manichaeans”
of the Midi, who refused to lie, take oaths, or eat meat, condemned matri¬
mony, rejected the sacraments, denied the resurrection of the body, and
would accept neither the Old Testament nor some books of the New Testa¬
ment. They called themselves apostles and believed that there were two gods.
Ralph accuses them of being secret worshipers of the devil. On Ralph, see
Thouzellier, Catharisme et valdeisme, p. 128, and the works there cited.
24. One of these sermons is translated in No. 15, part B.
25. Haskins, Studies in Mediaeval Culture, pp. 246-47, 250-52. Philip’s
target was one Echard, probably an adherent of the German branch of the
Poor Lombards.
26. A legend of the Cistercian preaching campaign helps to explain their
fate. At Montreal, Dominic and the heretics each had written down their
arguments for the judges to consider. Put to the test of fire, Dominic’s pages
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sources) 659
flew out of the flames unscathed while the heretics’ writings were consumed.
However, when William of Puylaurens searched for Dominic’s work a few
years later, he found no trace and concluded that the heretics had somehow
destroyed it (Cronica, ed. by Bessyier, in “Guillaume de Puylaurens et sa
chronique,” in Troisiemes Melanges d'histoire du moyen age, ed. by A.
Luchaire, p. 128).
27. See item xxv, Appendix.
28. For example, Toulouse (1119), canon 3 (Mansi, Concilia, XXI, 226);
Rheims, 1148 and 1157 (ibid., cols. 718, 843).
29. See the lists of sects in papal and imperial decrees cited in Ilarino da
Milano, VEresia di Ugo Speroni, p. 38, n. 1.
30. See Nos. 4, 28, 32; and 44, part B.
31. “Rapport a M. le Ministre de l’instruction publique sur une mission
executee en Italie de f^vrier a avril 1885: Etudes sur quelques manuscrits
des bibliotheques d’ltalie concemant requisition et les croyances heretiques
du XIIe et XIII® siicle,” Archives des missions scientifiques et littSraires,
3d ser., XIV (1888), 133-336; and UInquisition dans le Midi de la France
au XIIIe et au XIVe siecle. See also the study of the archives of the Inqui¬
sition in southern France in Dossat, Les Crises de Vlnquisition toulousaine,
chaps. I-II.
32. Documents pour servir a Vhistoire de I’lnquisition dans le Languedoc.
33. The Inquisition at Albi, 1299-1300.
34. Liber sententiarum inquisitionis Tholosanae ab anno Christi MCCCVll
ad annum MCCCXXlll (Part ii of Limborch, Historia inquisitionis). Notice
has been given by Editions Edouard Privat, Toulouse, of the publication in
three volumes of the register of the Inquisition of Jacques Fournier, bishop
of Pamiers, for the years 1318-1325—edited by Jean Duvemoy from Vati¬
can MS lat. 4030.
35. Beitrdge, Vol. II. That epochal work must always by used with cau¬
tion, for there are many differences between the texts in Dollinger’s pages
and the manuscripts from which he worked.
36. For examples of the value of research in the inquisitorial records,
see the works of J. M. Vidal cited in the first part of this Introduction,
n. 177.
37. The crowning achievement in this regard is the work of Moneta of
Cremona. See No. 50.
38. A number of witnesses before the Inquisition testified that they knew
of heretical doctrines only from having heard the orthodox clergy describe
them (Cdestin Douais, “Les Heretiques du comte de Toulouse dans la
premiere moitie du XIIIe si&cle, d’apres Fenquete de 1245,” Bulletin theo-
logique, scientifique et litteraire de Vlnstitut catholique de Toulouse, new
ser., Ill [1892], 167).
39. See, for example, the references to their numerous disputes published
in Lea, History of the Inquisition, Vol. II, Appendix X.
40. See the polemics listed under the names of Durand of Huesca and
 660 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sources)
Ermengaud of B&iers, items xii, xiii, xiv, xvii in the Appendix; also
Thouzellier, Catharisme et vald&isme, pp. 215ff.
41. Twenty-eight manuscripts of George’s Disputatio are known; thirty-
two of Alan of Lille’s Quadripartita. The greatest number of manuscripts
is of the work of Rainerius Sacconi.
42. Historians of heresy or of the Inquisition usually comment on the
polemical literature. We may cite particularly: Charles Schmidt, Histoire et
doctrine de la secte des Cathares ou Albigeois, II, 225-51; C. de Smedt,
“Les Sources de l’histoire de la croisade contre les Albigeois,” RQH, XVI
(1874), 476-81; Molinier, UInquisition, passim; Edmond Broeckx, Le
Catharisme; F61ix Vernet, “Cathares,” DTC, II, 1987-99; W. L. Wakefield,
“The Treatise against Heretics of James Capelli,” chap. II; and Borst, pp.
6-26. Polemical writings published since the most recent of these (Borst)
appeared include the work of William, a monk (item ii, Appendix), the
summa attributed to Prevostin (item ix), a manifesto against the Albigenses
(item xi), and the Liber contra manicheos of Durand of Huesca (item xvii).
43. This has been stated most flatly by Jean Guiraud, Cartulaire de Notre
Dame de Prouille, I, xxi-xxviii; and Pierre Belperron, La Croisade contre les
Albigeois, pp. 65-66.
44. On the stereotype of heresy, see Herbert Grundmann, “Der Typus
des Ketzers in mittelalterlicher Anschauung,” in Kultur- und Universalge-
schichte: Festschrift fur Walter Goetz, pp. 91-107.
45. It is proposed to study the amount of interdependence among authors
of the polemics in another place.
46. Lucie Varga, “Peire Cardinal etait-il heretique?” RHR, CXVII (1938),
205-31, esp. 212-15.
47. “The chances are that the whole positive side of Catharist teaching is
lost to us” (Oldenbourg, Massacre at Montsigur, p. 33).
48. See the discussion and conclusions of Dondaine, “Nouvelles sources,”
RSPT, XXVIII (1939), 478-81.
49. See No. 56.
50. Peter the Venerable saw a volume said “to have been written down
from his [Henry’s] very words” (see No. 12).
51. Otto of Freising, The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, trans. by
Mierow, i.lvi (lv), p. 94; see also Annales Magdeburgenses, in MGH SS, XVI,
190.
52. See No. 21.
53. See No. 29.
54. See No. 31, part B.
55. “La Profession trinitaire du vaudois Durand de Huesca,” RTAM,
XXVII (1960), 268.
56. See No, 55, II, 6, where Bernard Gui is following the words of David
of Augsburg, written a generation earlier.
57. Haskins, Studies in Mediaeval Culture, p. 255, lists references from
the first half of the thirteenth century to vernacular Bibles. See Samuel
Notes to Introduction (Historical Sources) 661

Berger, “Les Bibles provengales et vaudoises,” Romania, XVIII (1889),

353*422; also his “Nouvelles recherches sur les Bibles provengales et
catalanes,” Romania, XIX (1890), 505-61.
58. See No. 43, n. 10.
59. See No. 55, II, 5. In the second half of the thirteenth century an
inquisitor noted that the Waldenses “have also composed some verses called
‘The Thirty Steps (gradus) of St. Augustine,’ in which they teach virtues to
be desired and vices to be detested and in these they have' adroitly inserted
their rites and heresies, the better to induce people to learn them and firmly
commit them to memory... and they have composed other attractive verses
for this reason” (David of Augsburg [?] De inquisitione hereticorum 17, ed.
by Preger, p. 215 [item xxvii in the list of polemics, Appendix]).
60. Adversus catharos et valdenses, p. 403.
61. The most famous piece of Waldensian literature, La Nobla Leicon
[the noble lesson] was probably written late in the fourteenth century. It
preserves the original teaching of the sect but has a tone of pessimism about
the misery of human life and the dread of the Last Judgment, together with
a preoccupation with apocalyptic lore and the appearance of Antichrist. See
Antonio de Stefano, La Noble Legon des Vaudois du Piemont, pp. lxxii-
Ixxxi, on the date of the poem; pp. xiii-xvi, on other Waldensian literature.
See also the edition and translations in Six Vaudois Poems from the Walden¬
sian Manuscripts in the University Libraries of Cambridge, Dublin, and
Geneva, ed. and trans. by H. J. Chaytor. A “rule of faith,” also of the
fourteenth century, defends the concept that the Waldensians preserved the
original, apostolic Christianity, which the Roman Church had abandoned.
On this and other literature of the sect, see Thomas Kappeli and A.
Zaninovi6, “Trails anti-vaqdois,” AFP, XXIV (1954), 297-305.
62. See No. 44, esp. n. 18.
63. See No. 55, IV, 2, and also the Liber sententiarum of Bernard Gui,
p, 309.
64. There are, for example, numerous references in inquisitorial sources
to physicians and notaries among them. Guiraud, Histoire de l*Inquisition,
Vol. I, chap. Ill, discusses social classes and heresy with reference to the
Midi.
65. Borst, p. 107, n. 35. But Walther, “Recent Research,” Church History,
XXXIV (1965), 166-67, states that no form of education or training of
“instructors” was known among the Albigensian Cathars.
66. See No. 27.
67. Charles Molinier argues that Catharist literature existed in consider¬
able quantity but was almost completely destroyed (“Un Traite inSdit du
XIII* siecle contre les heretiques cathares,” Annales de la Faculty des lettres
de Bordeaux, V [1883], 226-35). Mile Thouzellier agrees (Un Trait6 cathare,
p. 18). But Dondaine held that their literature was meager (“Nouvelles
sources,” RSPT, XXVIII [1939], 469-71). It was also poor in quality in the
opinion of Yves Dossat, “Cathares et Vaudois a la veille de la croisade
 662 Notes to Introduction (Historical Sources)
albigeoise,” RHLL, II (1945), 394. Delaruelle agrees; see “Le Catharisme
en Languedoc,'* Annales du Midi, LXXII (1960), 157, and his review of
Mile Thouzellier's work, in RHE, LX (1965), 526-27. Such Catharist works
as were known in 1935 are discussed in Guiraud, Histoire de 1’Inquisition,
I, xi-xv; and a partial list of references to them in the sources is given by
Ilarino da Milano, UEresia di Ugo Speroni, p. 462, n. 1. The translations in
this volume comprise all that are known from the thirteenth century.
68. Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, pp. 49-50; Thouzellier, Un Traite
cathare, chap. Ill, esp. pp. 48, 58, 63-64. But F. B. Badham and F. C.
Conybeare (“Fragments of an Ancient [?Egyptian] Gospel Used by the
Cathars of Albi,” The Hibbert Journal, XI [1913], 805-18), thought that
they detected the influence of a pre-Jerome translation of the Gospel among
the Cathars; and Walther (“Recent Research,” Church History, XXXIV
[1965], 163) writes: “The Cathari used a heterodox Gospel prior to Marcion
—of Egyptian origin.”
69. Guiraud, Histoire de 1’Inquisition, I, x, n. 1; Douais, Documents, II,
97, n. 1: Molinier, “Rapport... Etude sur quelques manuscrits,” Archives
des missions scientifiques et litteraires, 3d ser., XIV (1888), 290-91. See also
No. 55, I, 4. Sommariva (“La Comprehension historique de l’heresie,” in
Spiritualite de Vheresie, p. 70) asserts that most references in orthodox
sources to heretical books are to vernacular versions of the New Testament.
70. The Council of Toulouse (1229) forbade the Bible to laymen but
allowed them the Psalms, breviaries, and books of hours in Latin. Trans¬
lations of the Scriptures into the Gallic tongue were forbidden by another
council, at Rheims in 1230. In 1234 James I of Aragon added the first royal
prohibition on the possession of the Bible in Romancio. At Beziers in 1246,
a council forbade all theological works, even in Latin, to laymen; see
Molinier, “Un Traite inedit,” Annales de la Faculte des lettres de Bordeaux,
V (1883), 234, n. 2; Lea, History of the Inquisition, I, 324, and III, 612;
Haskins, Studies in Mediaeval Culture, pp. 246-48.
71. See No. 57, part B, and No. 60, part B. Witnesses before the In¬
quisition who said that they could not understand the prayers of the Perfect
during the consolamentum no doubt were referring to the Lord's Prayer in
Latin, but there was a heretic’s prayer in the vernacular, which is printed
in Dollinger, Beitrage, II, 177-78. It is translated in Oldenbourg, Massacre
at Montsegur, Appendix C. See also the analysis of it in Rene Nelli, ed.,
Spiritualite de Vheresie, pp. 162-66.
72. Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 50; Delaruelle, “Le Cathar-
israe en Languedoc vers 1200,” Annales du Midi, LXXII (1960), 156-57.
73. De altera vita (see item xvii [b] Appendix), pp. 247-48. Another
heretical trick, Luke wrote, was to give false titles to works of the Fathers
in order to confuse Catholic readers (ibid., p. 246, cf. p. 240), and some¬
times they wrote out little statements of their belief and scattered them for
peasants and shepherds to find. By scenting them with musk, they encour¬
aged simple folk to believe these had dropped from heaven (ibid., p. 248).
Notes to Introduction (On the Translations) 663

74. Duvernoy, “Un Traite cathare,” Cahiers d’etudes cathares, 2d ser.,

XIII (1962), 31, n. 1; Molinier, ‘‘Un Trait6 inedit,” Annales de la Faculti
des lettres de Bordeaux, V (1883), 233.
*

75. Guiraud, Histoire de VInquisition, I, xi-xii.

76. Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 19; Borst, pp. 269-15. Raine-
rius Sacconi possessed “a large volume of ten quires” written by John of
Lugio; see No. 51, § 23.
77. Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, pp. 22, 24-25; Dossat, “Cathares
et vaudqis a la veille de la croisade albigeoise,” RHLL, II, (1945), 394. The
heretical work is exhaustively analyzed in Borst, pp. 254-79, 283-310.
78. Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay Hystoria albigensis, ed. by Pascal Guebin
and Ernest Lyon, I, 28-29; William of Puylaurens Cronica, ed. by Bessyier,
p. 128.
79. See No. 45, part B.
80. Thomas Kappeli, “Une Somme contre les heretiques de S. Pierre
Martyr?” AFP, XVII (1947), 307, 310-11.
81. De altera vita, p. 241.
82. Adversus Catharos et Valdenses libri quinque, ed. by T. A. Ricchini,
pp. 61, 71, 79.
83. Ibid., pp. 248, 347; see also No. 54, n. 10.
84. Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 33.
85. Joannes H. Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum romanorum pontificum
constitutiones ..., I, 133.
86. Anecdotes historiques, ed. by A. Lecoy de la Marche, pp. 275-77.
87. In English may be cited Denis de Rougement, Love in the Western
World, trans. by Montgomery Belgion (New York, 1953), which seeks to
show that the inspiration of the troubadours came from the Albigensian
heresy; also James Westfall Thompson, “Catharist Social Ideals in Medieval
French Romances,” Romanic Review, XXVII (1936), 99-104. Jeffrey B.
Russell, “Courtly Love as Religious Dissent,” Catholic Historical Review,
LI (1965), 31-44, argues that the troubadours were dissenters but not
Catharist heretics. Walther, “Recent Research,” Church History, XXXIV
(1965), 171, takes a somewhat similar view. For the abundant literature on
the subject see the last-named article, also Borst, pp. 49-50 and 107, n. 37,
and for the vigorous rejection of any significant connection between Cathar-
ism and the troubadours or between Catharism and the legend of the Grail
see Paul Imbs, “A la Recherche d’une litterature cathare,” Revue du moyen
age latin, V (1949), 289-302; and Robert H. Gere, The Troubadours, Heresy,
and the Albigensian Crusade.

A NOTE ON THE TRANSLATIONS

1. A short passage on a Catharist theme in the manuscript which contains

the text of No. 60 was not translated. Two other documents which may dis¬
play heretical inspiration may also be mentioned. One is an inscription on
664 Notes to Introduction (On the Translations)
the tomb of Bishop Maur of Cracow (1110-1119); on it see Pierre David,
“Un Credo cathare?” RHE, XXXV (1939), 756-61. The other is a little
moralistic work in Provencal, praising chastity, poverty, and other virtues;
see Clovis Brunei, “Fragment d’un abrege de theologie en ancien Provencal,”
BEC, CXII (1954), 1-23, although it is we, not Brunei, who suggest that
Catharist influence may be seen in it.

1. EARLY TRACES OF HERESY IN FRANCE,

ITALY, AND SPAIN

1. See the Introduction, pp. 21-22. Dondaine, “L’Origine de l’heresie

medievale,” RSCI, VI (1952), 47-78, brings all the incidents dealt with in
our Nos. 1-6 into his discussion of Bogomil penetration of the West in the
eleventh century.
2. Nothing more of Leutard is known than appears in this narrative.
There is, however, reference to a synod convened in 1015 by Bishop Roger I
of Chalons-sur-Marne (1008-1042) to deal with the vestiges of Leutard’s
heresy (Jeanne-Marie Noiroux, “Les Deux Premiers Documents concernant
l’heresie aux Pays-Bas,” RHE, XLIX [1954], 853).
3. Though prophetic visions were not uncommon in the Middle Ages,
visitations of this particular sort appear to be rare in accounts of heresy.
Gregory of Tours (History of the Frank x.xxv) tells a story of a woodcutter
who became a false prophet after the experience of being surrounded by a
swarm of flies, and who was reputed to be insane. See also Paul Alphandery,
“De quelques faits de prophetisme dans les sectes latines anterieures au
Joachimisme,” RHR, LII (1905), 177-218, esp. 185, note; cf. Borst, p. 73,
n. 4.
4. Almost certainly this was Gebuin II, bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne
(991-1004), although Alphandery, in the article cited in n. 2 points out that
there may be some doubt of the correct identification, for Ralph mentions
the bishop as “Gebuinus senex,” which might imply Gebuin I (d. 991),
whose death Ralph erroneously puts in 1007.
5. But heretics were to reappear (see No. 6), and throughout the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries heresy was endemic in the region.
6. The date can be only approximate; see n. 8.
7. Ilarino da Milano (“Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 48-49)
sees in this incident an early humanist challenge to Christian orthodoxy,
a challenge arising from enthusiasm for pagan and classical learning.
8. Peter VI was archbishop of Ravenna (927-971). There was no other
prelate of this name at Ravenna in the late tenth or early eleventh centuries.
If Ralph is correct in specifying that the incident occurred under Peter, it
must have been prior to 971. Borst (p. 74, n. 6) gives the date we have
adopted.
9. On the death penalty for heresy in Italy, see Havet, “L’Heresie et le
Notes to Number 3 665
bras s6culier,” BEC, XU (1880), 490-97, 570-71.
10. Exterminati sunt: This is an equivocal term which we shall meet on
subsequent pages (e.g., in No. 6). It may mean to expel forcibly—that is,
to banish—or to destroy. In reference to heretics, the latter meaning came
to prevail by the thirteenth century, but is would be hazardous so to construe
the expression in all or even most cases where it appears before that date.
In this particular context, following so closely the statement that heretics
in Italy died by fire and sword, the probability is that the author meant to
imply death, but this is only a guess. For a discussion of this term, see
Coulton, The Death Penalty for Heresy from 1184 to 1921, pp. 9-19; Havet,
“L’Heresie et le bras s6culier,” BEC, XU (1880), 511-12, 573; Cauzons,
Histoire de VInquisition, I, 295.
11. Apoc. 20:7. It is not safe to accept the conclusion that the heretics
of Sardinia and Spain shared Vilgard's bookish delusions. His spirit did not
die, however. In mid-century a teacher named Anselm the Peripatetic, of
Milan, complained that he was regarded almost as a heretic and shunned as
a demoniac for his learning. He, too, had a vision in which saints and muses
struggled to possess him, while he himself was unable to choose between
their attractions; see Reginald Lane Poole, Illustrations of the History of
Mediaeval Thought and Learning, 2d ed., p. 71.

2. “MANICHAEANS” IN AQUITAINE

1. This name was very often applied to heresy in the Middle Ages. Per¬
haps churohmen turned to the pages of St. Augustine when confronted by
doctrinal aberrations they did not fully understand; see, for example, the
remarks of the bishop of Chalons in No. 6 (esp. n. 2), of Guibert of Nogent
(No. 9, esp. n. 4), and the polemical sermons of Eckbert of Schonau in
44
Migne When genealogy” of heresy
was discussed, Mani was usually prominent among ancient heresiarchs men
tioned (see No. 45, part C, § 23, and n. 39), and attributing heresy to Mani’j
common who
may be presumed to have been most familiar with the heretics—seldom used
term “Manichaean 1260. Opinions of modem
between ancient and medieval dualism have already been
above
2. Ademar also records the Manichaeans” in Toulouse in
1022 (m.lix, p. 184) and the summoning
nobles at Carroux in Aquitaine in 1026 to consider action against “Mani
chaean” heretics (m.lxix, p. 194).

3. HERESY AT ORLEANS

1. The chartulary is divided into three parts, of which Paul compiled only
the first. The title Vetus Aganon (or Agano) came from Haganus, or Aganus,
666 Notes to Number 3
bishop of Chartres (931-ca. 941), from whose episcopate date the first pieces
in the collection.
2. Robert the Pious, king of France (996-1031).
3. “From Perigord” appears to be an interpolation made in the twelfth
century (Borst, p. 75, n. 10), when heresy in Perigord was still attracting
attention (see No. 16). Ralph the Bald (Histoires m.viii, p. 74) attributed
the propagation of heresy in Orleans to a woman missionary from Italy.
4. Adgmar’s reticence does not characterize other chroniclers of heresy, for
allegations of devil-worship accompanied by obscene behavior were to become
almost commonplace; see, for example, part B; No. 9; and No. 42, part B.
5. Bishop of Orleans, 1021-1035.
6. The number of victims is given as thirteen by Ralph the Bald (Histoires
in.viii, p. 80) and as fourteen by John, a monk of Fleury (Epistola ad
Olibam abbatem, in Bouquet, Recueil, X, 498).
7. Lisoius was a canon of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Orleans.
8. Ralph the Bald (Histoires m.viii, p. 74) also comments on their readi¬
ness to undergo suffering. This is the first recorded case of the penalty of
death by burning for heresy in France. See Havet, “L’Heresie et le bras
seculier,” EEC, XLI (1880), 495-503; and Maisonneuve, pp. 98-99. Maison-
neuve believes that the penalty was a popular reaction against “sorcerers.”
9. Immediately preceding this passage is the record of a gift of holdings,
rents, and services made to the monastery of Saint-Peter-in-the-Valley by
this Norman noble.
10. These are the two individuals most frequently named in the sources.
Stephen was a canon of the collegiate church of Saint-Peter, and confessor
to Queen Constance; on Lisoius, see n. 7, above. Ralph the Bald (m.viii,
p. 74) mentions one Heribert as a leader, but this is probably a confusion of
identity with the cleric spoken of in our text. Elsewhere a Fulcher is also
named (Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 53).
11. Duke Richard II of Normandy (996-1027). The author writes “count”
(comes) here and elsewhere in the narrative when referring to the duke of
Normandy.
12. Bishop of Chartres (1007-1029).
13. Stories of orgiastic rites and the preparation of a horrid food from
the blood and ashes of infants are of ancient vintage. Something of the sort
had been told of suspect groups for centuries: by Romans of Christians, by
Christians of Montanists, Messalians, and other heretics, and of Jews (see
Herman Strack, The Jew and Human Sacrifice, trans. by Henry Blanchamp,
pp. 35-37 and chap. 20). In the middle of the eleventh century Michael
Psellus accused heretics in Thrace of the use of magical ashes made from
murdered infants (Obolensky, The Bogomils, pp. 186-87). In later medieval
versions, the shining man or black man or little beast became a toad or a
cat appearing in the assemblies of heretics to baptize them or to receive a
shameful kiss. Gossip at first, such reports were eventually vouched for by
respectable authority; see No. 42, introduction and part B; No. 45, part A;

i
Notes to Number 4 667

and the anecdotes of Stephen of Bourbon (ed. by Lecoy de la Marche,

pp. 34-35, 322-23). The association of heresy and the cat was common; see
No. 35, n. 4. Toad, black man, cat, obscene behavior, and indiscriminate
sexual relations are all mentioned in a letter by Gregory IX repeating stories
told to him: Les Registres de Grtgoire IX (ed. by L. Auvray), No. 1391,1,
780-81. These tales became standard among witch-hunters of later cen¬
turies. In medieval reports of heresy, tales of sexual orgies unadorned by
devil-worship are too numerous to list. Typical is one told by Caesarius of
Heisterbach (Dialogus miraculorum, I, 308) of a young man visiting Verona
who, when accused of frequenting nocturnal meetings of heretics, pro¬
tested that he himself was no heretic, he went only to enjoy the girls. That
indiscriminate sexual relationships were part of the ceremonies of an ancient
Gnostic cult revived in Germany about 1160 is asserted in Karl Heisig,
“Ein gnostische Sekte im abendlandischen Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift fur Reli¬
gions•- und Geistesgeschichte, XVI (1964), 271-74. The concomitance of
sexual and religious enthusiasm is too well attested in all eras for one to
doubt some connection in the Middle Ages, but whether or not Adeiriar’s
story was more than a folk tale of ancient lineage, conveniently recollected
(as we think), the reader must fudge for himself.
14. Other beliefs, sometimes contradictory, are attributed to them in other
sources. They are charged with denying that sins can be forgiven; repudiating
ecclesiastical ordination; spurning matrimony; and insisting that the world
is eternal. They are said in one source to deny the Trinity and in another
to believe in the trinity and the unity of God; their refusal to eat meat is
stated and denied (see Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi
Gregoriani, II, 53-59).
15. Note also the relationship between Lisoius and the king, mentioned
in part A, above. Other sources remark that the group included distinguished
clergymen and noble laymen.
16. The execution took place on December 28, 1022. As the flames
arose, according to Ralph the Bald (m.viii, pp. 80-81), voices repenting the
diabolic deception which had brought about this fate could be heard from
the fire, whereupon some bystanders attempted a rescue, but in vain.

4. THE CONVERSION OF HERETICS BY

THE BISHOP OF ARRAS-CAMBRAI

1. The diocese of Arras was joined to that of Cambrai in 580, with

episcopal residence in Cambrai. The two were divided again in 1093.
2. Noiroux, “Les Deux Premiers Documents,” RHE, XLIX (1954), 842-
»

55, presents the arguments for identifying “R.” as Bishop Roger I of Chalons-
sur-Marne (1008-1042). Jeffrey B. Russell, “A propos du synode d’Arras,”
RHE, LVII (1962), 66-87, argues that “R.” probably refers to Bishop
Reginald of Li&ge (1024/25-1036) and that the heretics came from that area.
668 Notes to Number 4
3. Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis maxime Bene-
dictorum delituerant Spicilegium, XIII (Paris, 1677), 1-63; new ed. by
L. F. -J. de la Barre, I (Paris, 1723), 607-24.
4. If 1025 is the actual year, the synod was held on January 10 or 17
(Russell, “A propos du synode d’Arras,” RHE, LVII [1962], 70).
5. Ps. 67 (A.V. 68).
6. See No. 3, n. 3, for another report of missionary activity at Orleans.
7. John 3:5.
8. Regeneration is nupterium: In a subsequent passage of the bishop’s
refutation regenerationis mysterium, which we have adopted here, is used.
9. This passage of D’Achery’s text was not printed but only summarized
by Fredericq.

5. HERETICS AT MONFORTE

1. Ilarino da Milano (“Le eresie popolari, in Studi Gregoriani, II, 68,

n. 35), suggests that the spot is probably the present Monforte d’Alba in the
diocese of Alba, but notes also the possibility that there might have been
another Monforte in the diocese of Asti, as indicated by Ralph the Bald
(see n. 2). Since, by Landulf’s account, the heretics were brought to Turin,
the presumption would be that Monforte was under the jurisdiction of the
bishop of Turin.
2. The heretics are discussed also by Ralph the Bald (Histoires iv.ii, pp.
94-96), whose narrative differs in many respects.
3. Archbishop of Milan (1018-1045).
4. Itcdiam: In the context this probably means north Italy. See P. de
Grazia, “L’uso del nome Italia nel Medio Evo (VI-XII secolo),” Bolletino
della Reale societd geographica italiana, 5th ser., VIII (1919), 327-60.
5. Episcopum et clerum civ itatis, populum totius urbis: The distinction
is between the episcopal “city” and the whole urban agglomeration or town
as a unit of civil jurisdiction.
4 m •

6. In castello: This term, as used by authors of the Middle Ages, may

have various meanings, the more common being (1) the castle of a landed
noble, or (2) a fortified town or village, as distinct from an open town.
Johann Plesner (L*Emigration de la campagne a la ville libre de Florence au
XIlIe siecle, chap. I, esp. pp. 2-12) argues that in northern Italy the second
is the only meaning of the term, the fortified home of the noble being
designated by the terms rocca or arq. Any such categorical statement would
not be true for other parts of Europe. The problem of the castrum is men¬
tioned at this length because it will recur in subsequent sources in this
volume. For further discussion of the terms and their various meanings,
consult J. F. Verbruggen, “Note sur le sens des mots castrum, castellum, et
quelques autres expressions qui designent des fortifications,” RBPH, XXVIII
(1950), 147-55; and J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus
(Leiden: 1955-), fasc. 2, p. 155 s.v. “castrum” (six meanings of the word
Notes to Number 6 669

as used by medieval authors are given). In the present passage the words
castellum and castrum occur three times as synonymous terms. The exact
intent of the author is further clouded by mention of the countess of “that
stronghold” (castri illius), which might seem to imply the castle of a noble,
and which receives support from the narrative of Ralph the Bald (see n. 2,
above), who states that the heretics were nobles. Borst (pp. 77-78) accepts
this characterization. But beyond mention of the countess, Landulf gives no
such impression, for he regards them as intruders alien to Italy.
7. According to Ralph the Bald (see n. 2, above), Olderic, the bishop of
Asti (1018-1034), together with the Marchese Manfred, the count of Turin,
and other notables, led expeditions against Monforte, captured some here¬
tics, and burned them when they refused to recant.
8. Maiores: Perhaps this may be taken as evidence of a hierarchy,
although the group otherwise seems to have led a communal existence.
9. This is a confusing passage and we are not sure of either the translation
or the interpretation. Whether it is difficult because of Gerard’s conscious
attempt to cloud his thought or by reason of the failure of Landulf to
understand and report his testimony correctly cannot well be determined at
this distance. Gerard’s statement regarding God the Father seems clear and
direct, but in his references to Jesus and the Holy Spirit he resorts to sym¬
bolism—as Ilarino da Milano points out—-by which is destroyed the funda¬
mental doctrine of the unity of the Godhead. In affirming Jesus to be the
“soul of man beloved of God,” Gerard appears to be close to the early
Adoptionist position. But his further remark that Jesus is “born of Sacred
Scripture” would seem to mean that the soul may achieve salvation through
knowledge of the Scriptures as interpreted by the Holy Spirit; this reflects
certain aspects of Gnostic thought. See Dollinger, Beitrage, I, 69-70; Ilarino
da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 69; Grundmann,
Ketzergeschichte, pp. 9, 10.
10. About medieval belief in the virgin birth of bees, see Isidore of Seville
Etymologiarum libri XX xn.viii.2 (Migne, PL, LXXXII, 469-70); and
H. Bachtold-Staubli, Handworterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens (10 vols.,
Berlin, 1927-1942), I, 1227-28.
11. These references to a pontiff other than the Roman pope do not
bespeak an organized hierarchy, for the pontiff to whom Gerard refers seems
pretty clearly to mean the Holy Spirit; see Borst, p. 78, n. 19, and Violante,
La Societd milanese, p. 178; Dollinger dissents (Beitrage, I, 70). See also
No. 15, n. 38.

6. HERETICS AT CHALONS-SUR-MARNE
AND BISHOP WAZO

1. On Wazo, see Rudolf Huysman, Wazo van Luik in den idee'enstrijd

zijner dagen (Nijmegen, 1932).
2. Matt. 12:31-32. The reference here to Mani may be compared with a
670 Notes to Number 6
passage from the De haeresibus of St. Augustine, which consists of brief
sketches of all the heresies known to him. His treatment of the Manichaeans
(chap. XLVI) is much the longest. In it he says: “They claim that the
promise of the Lord Jesus Christ regarding the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit,
was fulfilled in their heresiarch Manichaeus. For this reason in his writings
he calls himself the apostle of Jesus Christ, in that Christ had promised to
send him and had sent the Holy Spirit in him” (quoted from The De
haeresibus of Saint Augustine, trans. by L. G. Muller, p. 95). The similarity
is clear, but at this distance one can only speculate whether the group at
Chalons were familiar with Manichaean doctrines, or whether the bishop,
or indeed, Anselm, put the words into their mouths. See Iiarino da Milano,
“Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 74-76; and Borst, p. 79, n. 21.
3. These tenets seem to show a closer similarity to the beliefs of the
scholars at Orleans than to those of other contemporary groups, although
the social circumstances of the heretics in the two places had little or nothing
in common.
4. Exterminentur: In the present context the clear implication is the death
penalty, despite reference to the leaven which, in the biblical passage (I Cor.
5:6-7), is to be “purged out.” Otherwise it would be difficult to explain the
spirited argument of Bishop Wazo against the penalty of death for heretics.
Cf. No. 1, n. 10.
5. Exod. 20:13.
6. Ps. 77 (A.V. 78):47.
7. I Cor. 15:36.
8. John 12:24-25.
9. This is the first known use of “Arian” to characterize heretics of the
eleventh and later centuries. It seems to be used here as a synonym for
“heretics,” of whom Arius was the archetype for many theologians. In the
next century the term would be employed by several writers but never by
heretics themselves. At that time it is probable not only that the vigorous
criticism of the Church made heretics appear troublesome and dangerous but
also that the dualist tendencies of some sects seemed to resemble the early
Arlans’ denial of the divinity of Christ. It is supposed that “Manichaean”
was used to designate aboslute dualism, “Arian” referred to mitigated
dualism; see Raoul Manselli, “Una designazione dell’eresia catara: ‘Arriana
heresis,’” BISIAM, LXVIII (1956), 233-46; Y. M. J. Congar, “‘Arriana
haeresis’ comme designation du neo-manicheisme au XIIe siecle,” RSPT,
XLIII (1959), 449-61; and Thouzellier, “La Profession trinitaire,” RTAM,
XXVII (I960), 279-82.
10. Pope Gregory I Moralia n.75.
11. Cf. Matt. 13:37-39.
12. Matt. 13:29-30.
13. Ecclus. 13:1.
14. The idea was that abstinence from meat, which was regarded as
evidence of heresy, caused the pallid complexion.
Notes to Number 7 671
15. Irreprehensibiliter: This was obviously a scribe’s mistake.
16. At Christmas, 1051, Henry III (king, 1039; emperor, 1046-1056)
ordered the execution of some heretics captured by Godfrey, duke of Lor¬
raine, of whom it is reported that they refused to eat meat (Hermanni
Augiensis Chronicon, ed. by G. H. Pertz, in MGH SS, V, 130). Other sources
for the incident are cited in Borst, p. 79, n. 23. Borst believes the Goslar
heretics to have derived from those of Chalons.
17. St. Martin, bishop of Tours (371-397?), refused Communion to
bishops who had consented to the slaughter of Priscillianists condemned by
the Emperor Maximin for allegedly practicing magic.

7. RAMIHRDUS: HERETIC OR REFORMER?

1. See Introduction, pp. 22-23.

2. He was Gerhard II, whose predecessor died September 28, 1076. By
September 10, 1077, Gregory VII had accepted his explanation of the
imperial investiture—Gerhard pleaded ignorance of the papal decree which
he had violated (Cauchie, LaQuerelle des investitures, I, 2, 8-9).
3. In his account, Cauchie publishes (pp. 9-12) a summary of a long
letter, written some months later than the incident here recounted, from the
clergy of Cambrai to the clergy of Rheims. The letter, which bitterly com¬
plains of the reform program being imposed on the clergy and suggests that
they establish a common front in defense of customs hallowed by long
usage, is published in Bouquet, Recueil, XIV, 779-80.
4. The date falls after September 28, 1076 (see n. 2, above) and some¬
what before March 25, 1077 (see n. 7, below).
5. Of two villages of that name, the one near Douai is identified as the
one referred to here, by Paul Beuzart, Les Heresies pendant le moyen age
et la reforme jusqua la mort de Philippe II, 1598, dans la region de Douai,
d’Arras, et au pays de l’A lieu, p. 8, n. 2.
6. There is a difference of scholarly opinion over the spelling: Schere,
Scherem, or Ferem (possibly the present-day Ferin, south of Douai; see
Beuzart, p. 8, n. 3). We adopt the choice of Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie
popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 81.
7. On March 25, 1077, Gregory VII wrote to Bishop Josfred of Paris
and directed an investigation of various complaints against Manasses, arch¬
bishop of Paris. Part of that letter reads: “It is also reported to us that the
people of Cambrai have burned a certain man because he dared to say that
priests guilty of simony or fornication have no right to celebrate Mass and
that their services should not be accepted. This seems to us terrible in the
extreme and if the report is true, it should be punished with canonical
severity. We call upon you, therefore, to inquire carefully into the truth of
the matter” (quoted from The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, trans. by
Ephraim Emerton, p. 117), The sources are silent on the results of this
investigation.
672 Notes to Number 7
8. This is the earliest of many references to heresy among clothworkers.
In some later sources the connection between weavers and heresy is explicitly
stated without any explanation of why this should be so; most of the sources
are cited by Grundmann, Religiose Bewegungen, pp, 31-33. On the possible
social implications of these references, see also Evans, “Social Aspects of
Medieval Heresy,” in Persecution and Liberty, pp. 93-116; and Borst, p. 248,
in both of which other pertinent secondary literature is cited,

8. THE HERESY OF TANCHELM

1. Henri Pirenne (“Tanchelin et le projet de demembrement du diocese

d’Utrecht vers 1100,” Academie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la classe des
lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, 5th ser., XIII [1927], 112-19)
sought to explain this project in the following terms: He suggested that
Tanchelm was a notary in the court of Robert II, count of Flanders, who
had already been instrumental in detaching Arras from the imperial diocese
of Cambrai in 1093. A few years later Robert was seeking also to gain for
the diocese of Tournai (not Therouanne as in the text, because, Pirenne
argued, Tournai and Utrecht were contiguous, Therouanne and Utrecht were
not) the area of Quatre-Metiers and even Zeeland from the Germanic diocese
of Utrecht. Tanchelm and Everwacher, a priest of Robert’s entourage, were
the count’s emissaries to Rome on the unsuccessful mission. To support his
theory, Pirenne postulated a scribe’s mistake in writing Therouanne (Teru-
wanensi episcopio) for Tournai (!Tornacensi episcopio). Jozef M. de Smet
(“De monnik Tanchelm en de Utrechtse Bisschopszetel in 1112-1114,” in
Scrinium Lovaniense: Melanges historiques Etienne van Cauwenburgh, pp.
207-34) rejects Pirenne’s theory of a scribe’s mistake, denies that Count
Robert sponsored the project, and insists that the intended beneficiary of
the transfer was the bishop of Therouanne. Russell {Dissent and Reform,
pp. 56-59) depicts Tanchelm as a reformer who became a heretic, but gives
a somewhat different sequence of the events in his career. See also the work
of Walter Mohr cited in the following note.
2. Mohr (“Tanchelm von Antwerpen: Eine nochmalige Oberpriifung der
Quellenlage,” Annales universitatis Saraviensis, III [1954], 234-47) agrees
with the Pirenne theory and concludes that Tanchelm was also an advocate
of the Gregorian reform program and that his propapal and anti-imperial
stand made him the target of attacks by the clergy of Utrecht and the arch¬
bishop of Cologne. Mohr points out the parallels with the narrative of
Gregory of Tours and agrees with Albert Hauck {Rirchengeschichte Deutsch-
lands, 6th ed. [Berlin and Leipzig, 1953], IV, 95-97) that the reference to
Tanchelm’s sacrileg: tus marriage with Mary was an exaggerated report based
on Tanchelm’s encouragement of the veneration of the Virgin, which was
widely practiced at that time.
3. Ps. 2:8. The phrase “like the Donatist heretics... in Africa” is not in
the text printed by Fredericq, nor does it appear in numerous other editions.
Notes to Number 9 673

all apparently copied from an early one by Sebastian Tengnagel, Collectio

veterum monumentorum contra schismatkos (1612), and included also in
the collected works of Jacob Gretser, Opera omnia, VI, 429-61. On the
manuscripts and editions, see De Smet, “De monnik Tanchelm,” in Scrinium
Lovaniense, p. 208, n. 4.
4. Ennaratio in Psalmos x.6 (Migne, PL, XXXVI, 135).
5. Ibid. 5 (col. 134).
6. Se non inferius nec dissimilius Deum.
7. Abelard, in his Introductio ad theologiam ii.iv (Migne, PL, CLXXVIII,
1056), writes: “Tanchelm, a layman... had become puffed up with such
madness that over and over again he had himself proclaimed the Son of
God and, so it is said, caused a temple to be built in his honor by the people
whom he had deluded.”
8. II Tim. 2:17.
9. According to one of the biographers of St. Norbert, there was at this
time only one priest in Antwerp and he was living in sin with his own niece
(Fredericq, Corpus, I, 23).
10. The Vita Norberti (Fredericq, Corpus, I, 23) adds that there was “no
duke or prince who could stand against or attack him.” Paul Alphandery
(Les Idees morales chez les hitirodoxes latins au debut du XlUe siecle,
pp. 102, 107) supposes that Tanchelm was seeking by force of arms to
establish a theocratic commune, free from the oversight of the Church.
11. Tanchelm had apparently escaped from the custody in which, at the
command of Archbishop Frederick of Cologne, he was held at the time of
his denunciation by the clergy of Utrecht. Nothing further is known of this
intrepid priestly exponent of direct action. The date of Tanchelm’s death is
variously given; most probably it was 1115.
12. St. Norbert (ca. 1082-1134), founder of the Premonstratensian order
(1119) and archbishop of Magdeburg (1126-1134), was invited by Bishop
Burchard of Cambrai (1116-1131) to establish in St. Michael’s Church at
Antwerp a house of Premonstratensian canons. This he did in 1124 (Frede¬
ricq, Corpus, I, 24, note). So effective was the work of Norbert that he was
acclaimed as the “apostle to Antwerp.” A popular biography is by Elie
Maire, Saint Norbert.

9. “MANICHAEANS” NEAR SOISSONS

1. See Bourguin’s Introduction to his edition of the autobiography, pp.

xlix-li.
2. John, count of Soissons. The author has been describing instances of
John’s wickedness and has accused him of favoring Jews and heretics and
of indulging in various depraved practices.
3. Bucy-le-Long, a few miles north of Soissons.
4. C. D. Du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, ed. by
G. A. L, Henschel (10 vols., Paris, 1840-1850), Vol. II, s.v. “dispensatio,
674 Notes to Number 9
1,” where the term is defined as meaning the assumption of flesh by Jesus.
Guibert probably had in mind a passage from St. Augustine’s De haeresibus
wherein the author says that the Manichaeans held that Christ “did not come
in real flesh, but presented the simulated appearance of flesh to deceive
human perception, and therein He feigned not only death, but resurrection
as well.” See Muller’s translation of the De haeresibus, pp. 94-95. Cf., also,
Letters 136 and 137 of St. Augustine (Migne, PL, XXX, 514-25), in the
first of which Marcellinus urges Augustine to correct the false teaching of
some “who defame the dispensation of the Lord’s incarnation.” In the
letter following, Augustine argues at some length that Christ was in very
truth born of the Virgin Mary and lived and wrought in the world.
5. The Latin of this passage is difficult and the sense obscure. We are
not at all sure of our translation, but, in conjunction with similar passages
elsewhere, it seems a more plausible rendering than a literal translation
would afford (cf. Monod, Le Moine Guibert, pp. 212-13). The whole para¬
graph appears to have been dragged in out of context, since it may be noted
that the promiscuity here recounted is in flat contradiction to what the
author said in the preceding paragraph about the heretics’ prohibition of
sexual intercourse.
6. This is probably a reference to the De haeresibus xlvi. See n. 4, above.
7. Bishop of Soissons (1108-1126).
8. Luke 6:22. “Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you.”
9. Mark 16:16.
10. Augustine De haeresibus hxx (trans. by Muller, pp. 110-11). The
quotation occurs also in Letter 237 of Augustine to Ceretius, concerning
the Priscillianists (Migne, PL, XXXIII, 1035).
11. In the present department of the Marne, twenty-two miles southwest
of Rheims.
12. A manuscript of Durham fols. 364ff.) has
rubric De hereticis aui Gallica lingua dicuntur Telier vel Deimai, under
which this chanter of Guibert

10. HERESY IN IVOY, NEAR TRIER

1. Guiraud, Histoire de Vinquisitionr I, 3; Fredericq, Corpus, I, 20, note.

2. In the Annals of Trier (printed by Fredericq, Corpus, I, 20-22), which
were compiled by C. Brouwer early in the seventeenth century, revised and
published by J. Masenius under the title A ntiquitatum et annalium Trev eren-
sium libri XXVI. One cannot be certain whether the reference to Berengar
was in the source from which Brouwer drew or was his own interpolation.
3. Borst, p. 85, n. 14.
4. The reference is to Archbishop Bruno of Trier (1102-1124).
5. Ivoy, in the present department of Ardennes, France.
6. The exact location of the first quotation from St. Augustine has not
been found, although there are in his works numerous similar passages.
Notes to Number 11 675
The second quotation is from Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspa (468-533), De
fide ad Petrum, sive de regula verae fidei liber unus xxx (regula 27 [Migne,
PL, LXV, 671-706]). The work was frequently ascribed to St. Augustine but
was shown by Erasmus to have been written by Fulgentius. See the prefatory
note in Migne, PL, XL, 753, where the treatise is included with the works of
St. Augustine (cols. 753-78).
7. Matt. 18:17.
8. There is in canon law, under the general title of contumacy, a whole
series of enactments covering this point and beginning in the early fifth
century. See R. Naz, Dictionnaire de droit canonique (Paris, 1955), IV,
506-41, r.v. “contumacia,” and the references to the Corpus juris canonici
there cited.
9. This refers to the Canon of the Mass, or Eucharistic prayer, which
follows the offertory prayers and constitutes the most solemn moment in
the mystery of the Mass. It was, and is, usually whispered; hence the name
Secreta. The term Actio derives from the act of consecrating the bread and
the wine. See Adrian Fortescue, “Canon of the Mass,” Catholic Ency¬
clopedia, III, 255-67; idem, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy,
chap. VIII; and H. Moreau, “Canon de la Messe,” DTC, II, 1540-50.
10. Apoc. 22:11.

11. HENRY OF LE MANS

1. Henry’s birthplace is unknown. He is associated with Le Mans be¬

cause of the incident described here, and with Lausanne because St. Bernard
lists that city as the first scene of his activity (see No. 14, part A, § 3).
Walter (Die ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs, Neue Folge, pp. 13Off.)
argues to good effect that Henry was from northern France or Brittany and
made his first reputation as a wandering preacher in those parts. The date
of his appearance at Le Mans has been set as early as 1101, but the work
of Adolphe Dieudonne establishes it between 1115 and 1120, most probably
in 1116; see “Hildebert de Lavardin, eveque du Mans, archeveque de Tours,
1056-1133,” Revue historique et archeologique du Maine, XLI-XLII (1896-
1897), esp. XLI, 185. Manselli corroborates Dieudonne’s conclusion in the
studies cited in the last paragraph of this introduction.
2. Mansi, Concilia, XXI, 226-27. The canon was re-enacted at the Lateran
Council of 1139. Cf. Manselli, Studi sulle eresie, p. 56.
3. Ibid*, p. 67 and chap. IV.
4. See the Introduction to the Actus pontificum Cenomannis, pp. xxxvii-
xxxviii; also Histoire littercare de la France, XXIV, 410-12.
5. The allusion is to the prophet praying in an upper chamber (Dan. 6:10);
the quotation is from Jer. 9:21.
6. Fulk V, count of Anjou and Maine (1109/10-1129).
7. Hugo de Osello, Willelmus qui-non-bibit-aquam, et Paganus Aldricus.
8. Paschal II (1099-1118).
676 Notes to Number 11
9. Monasteries in Le Mans.
10. Exactor: cf. Luke 12:58. It is rendered as “officer” in the A. V. and
the New Catholic Edition, and as “exacter” in the Douay; but see Du Cange,
S»
s.v. “exactor.
11. Perhaps this was one of the two youths who later sought forgive¬
ness from Bishop Hildebert. In a letter of uncertain date, but between
1117 and 1125, Hildebert wrote to his fellow prelates: “The bearers of these
presents, Cyprian and Peter, while they aspired in their hearts to ascend,
descended into the lake of death, led astray by a certain pseudo-prophet
whose followers brought punishment upon themselves. This man was Henry,
a great snare of the devil and a notorious armor-bearer of Antichrist. The
brothers named above long clung to him, who made a pretense of religion in
his garb and of learning in his words, until the shame in his life and the
error in his teaching became evident to them. When they learned how wrong
were his ways, they first returned to their senses, then they came back to
us, whose diocese this plague had so infected that in resisting it our clergy
with difficulty maintained their liberty inside the walls of their churches.”
The bishop begs that the two youths not be made to suffer for their mis¬
take (Migne, PL, CLXXI, 242).
12. Ps. 82 (A.V. 83): 17,
13. Ps. 30:20 (A.V. 31:19).
14. Bernard of Clairvaux repeats these accusations (see No. 14, part A,
§ 3), whether of his own knowledge or on the basis of reports from Le Mans
we do not know.
15. Cicero De officiis n.xii.43.
16. He may have gone southward through Poitiers and Bordeaux (see
No. 14, part A, § 3).
17. Ps. 101:18 (A.V. 102:17).
18. Bernard Guarin (1129-1138).
19. Innocent II (1130-1143).
20. The date of this council has often been given as 1134, but 1135 has
been established as the correct year (Joseph Kramp, “Chronologisches zu
Peters des Ehrwiirdigen epistola adversus Petrobrusianos,” in Miscellanea
Francesco Ehrle, I, 74, n. 3). In view of their activities against Henry, it is
interesting to note that both Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter the Venerable
attended the council. None of its extant canons deal with heresy.
21. Bernard of Clairvaux and Geoffrey of Auxerre later referred to
Henry as an apostate monk (see No. 14, part A, § 3, and part B), an accu¬
sation which may be explained by Geoffrey’s statement, in a letter written
in 1145, that at Pisa Henry had “abjured all the heresies he is now teaching
and, being handed over to the Lord Abbot Bernard, received from him
letters for Clairvaux, so that he might become a monk there” (Epistola ad
Archenfredum, in Migne, PL, CLXXXV, 412).
22. This reference to a “new sect” is puzzling. Perhaps it is best explained
by the distance of the chronicler from the events he recorded, so that the
Notes to Number 12 677

later development of Henry’s ideas seemed to him to be in marked contrast

to what was recalled of his actions in Le Mans.
23. Peter the Venerable in a letter, the foreword of which is translated
in No. 13, and St. Bernard (see No. 14, part A, § 1) describe the situation
in Languedoc in equally gloomy terms.

12. A MONK’S DESCRIPTION OF THE

ERRORS OF HENRY

1. Manselli, “II monaco Enrico,” B1SIAM, LXV (1953), 38-39.

2. “Sur quelques Merits concernant les heresies et les heretiques au XIIe
et XIIIe si&cles,” RHE, XXXVI (1940), 143-44, publishing only the chapter
headings of the work. William cannot be identified. A name that suggests
itself is that of William of St. Thierry, friend of Bernard of Oairvaux and
polemicist against Abelard and Gilbert de la Porree. There is no evidence
either for or against this suggestion.
3. Another manuscript of the tract was identified by Antoine Dondaine.
It is Seville, Colombina 7-6-6, fols. 59r-64v, which follows the Paris copy
(“Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX [1959], 257, n. 72).
4. Ibid., pp. 256-57. See also No. 36 and the references there cited. The
version thus copied was that of the Paris MS.
5. This preface, which indicates that the tract was first written for the
attention of some ecclesiastical dignitary, does not appear in the Nice MS.
6. Acts 5:29.
7. Matt. 28:19.
8. Matt. 19:19.
9. The Catholic reply which follows is in three parts: On obedience. On
mission, On the writings of Jerome, Augustine, and other doctors. Neither
the words of Henry nor the reply given in this paragraph appear in the Nice
MS.
10. This doctrine in different words is attributed to the heretic in the
Nice MS, where, in the last and unnumbered chapter (fol. 141v), he is made
to say that “children of Christians, Jews, and Saracens, if they die before
the years of understanding, are saved.” On Pelagius, see No. 40, n. 6.
11. Ezech. 18:20.
12. Ezech. 18:20 and Gal. 6:5.
13. This tenet is not found in the Nice MS.
14. This tenet is not found in the Nice MS.
15. Rom. 3:23.
16. See No. 14, n. 13.
17. The Nice MS, chap. IV (fols. 140v-141r), states only Henry’s view
that marriages may be dissolved only on grounds of adultery.
18. Jas. 5:16.
19. This and the following passages on the episcopal office and on church
678 Notes to Number 12
buildings are not found in the Nice MS.
20. This is surely a reference to some work which presented Henry’s
teaching in written form.
21. This assertion and a Catholic response appear only in the Nice MS
(fols. 141r-v). The first words (“What follows”) are another indication that
the author had some written version of Henry’s teaching before him as he
wrote.

13. THE TEACHINGS OF PETER OF BRUYS

1. If Bruys was his birthplace, it may well have been the little village
now in the department of Hautes-Alpes (Manselli, Studi suite eresie, p. 30).
The heretic’s career lasted about twenty years, according to Peter the Vener¬
able; and Kramp (“Chronologisches zu Peters des EhrwUrdigen epistola,”
in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, I, 73) argues that he died after 1131 but
before 1135. Manselli (Studi suite eresie, pp. 28-29) would put it, more
precisely, late in 1132 or in 1133. Borst (p. 83) gives the date of his death
as “perhaps 1126,” but does not cite the work of Kramp. His account of
Henry and Peter (pp. 83-86), also differs in minor points from that which
we have sketched in the introductions and notes to these translations.
2. There is a brief comment in Abelard Introductio ad theologiam n.iv
(Migne, PL, CLXXVIII, 1056), which mentions Peter’s rejection of the
Cross and of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
3. This letter, although intended as a preface to the work rebutting the
Petrobrusian errors, in itself is one of a number of the same type appearing
toward the middle of the twelfth century. These “epistolary polemics” were
usually written by monks and were intended to alert their readers to the
dangers of the heresies which were described. Of a similar nature are the
letters of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eberwin of Steinfeld, and the monk Heribert
—translated in Nos. 14, part A; 15; and 16, respectively—as well as that of
the monk William in No. 12.
4. The persons addressed were: Bernard Guarin, archbishop of Arles
(1129-1138), who was to capture Henry and take him to the Council of
Pisa in 1135; William I, archbishop of Embrun (ca. 1120-1134/35); Uldric,
bishop of Die (ca. 1130-1144); and William, bishop of Gap (1130-1149).
5. The author’s first and longer but uncirculated letter had been addressed
to the prelates of Embrun, Die, and Gap, all situated east of the Rhone,
and a sentence in the letter (Migne, PL, CLXXXIX, 770), indicates that
Aries was not troubled by heresy at the time of writing. The inclusion of
the archbishop of Arles among the recipients when the two letters were later
forwarded shows the spread of Peter’s activities westward to the area where
he met his death.
6. In earlier times Septimania meant the region bounded by the Pyrenees,
the Garonne, the southern Cevennes, and the Rhone. Here Peter the Vener¬
able seems to refer particularly to the area just west of the Rhone.
Notes to Number 14 679

7. Rom. 1:28.
8. Ps. 56:5 (A.V. 57:4).
9. Mark 16:16.
10. Perhaps this was a version of the work of the monk William which
is translated in No. 12.

14. BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX AGAINST HENRY

1. It presents in slightly abbreviated form the author's “Les Origines de

l’heresie albigeoise,” RQH, LV (1894), 50-83. We shall cite the original
article in subsequent notes.
2. Cf. Matt. 7:15,16.
3. Matt. 19:14.
4. Cf. Rom. 5:12.
5. Universitatis gratia pervenisse.
6. The trip was made in May-August, 1145 (Vacandard, “Les Origines
de l’her6sie albigeoise/’ RQH, LV [1894], 51 ff.; Raoul Manselli, “Alberico,
cardinale vescovo d’Ostia e la sua attivita di legato pontificio,” ASRSP,
LXXVIII [1955], 56-61).
7. Cf. Prov. 26:11.
8. Gyrovagus: a term applied to monks or priests who left their monas¬
teries or parishes for aimless wandering. They were denounced in the first
chapter of the rule of St. Benedict and were the subject of reproaches by
St. Bernard and his contemporaries.
9. Cf. Matt. 7:18.
10. This was Alberic, cardinal-bishop of Ostia, legate to France (1144-
1145). Cf. II Mach. 10:38; there, however, the reference is to the Lord.
Alberic and Bernard were on cordial terms, especially later in the affair of
Gilbert de la Porr6e (Manselli, “Alberico,” ASRSP, LXXVIII [1955], 62-64).
11. Bernard and Alberic were accompanied on the mission by Raymond
Bernard, bishop of Agen (1128-1149); Geoffrey II of L&ves, bishop of
Chartres (1116-1149); and Gerald of Cher, bishop of Limoges (ca. 1142-
1177).
12. I Tim. 4:2.
13. When Bernard was preparing to return to Clairvaux, soon after
August 1, 1145 (see the discussion of the date in Manselli, “Alberico,”
ASRSP, LXXVIII [1955], 58, n. 1), Geoffrey wrote a letter to the com¬
munity at Clairvaux, describing the events which had occurred up to that
time (Epistola ad Archenfredum, in Migne, PL, CLXXXV, 410-16). Of the
heretics in Toulouse, he said that some called Arriani were found among
the clothworkers in the city (on the use of the term “Arians” as a name for
medieval heretics, see No. 6, n. 9, above). There was religious disaffection
among other classes also, particularly the nobility, but, in Geoffrey’s opinion,
more out of hatred for the clergy than from sympathy with heretics. Bernard
had persuaded the townspeople to repudiate heretics and swear that they
680 Notes to Number 14
would have no more to do with them, but Geoffrey at that time felt that
much preaching was stiU necessary to redeem the land.
14. The actual details of Henry’s fate escape us. Manselli (“11 monaco
Enrico,” BISIAM, LXV [1953], 32) assumes that “the bishop” here refers
to the legate Alberic. If this is true, Henry was apprehended between late
August and early November. The first of these dates is set by the fact that
sometime after Bernard returned to Clairvaux in August, he wrote a letter
to the people of Toulouse (Migne, PL, CLXXXII, 436-37) in which he
remarks that the heretics had been “disclosed but not captured” (deprehensae
sed non comprehensae) and urges the people to pursue and seize them. The
second date is set by the fact that Alberic was in Rome by November 17
(Manselli, “Alberico,” ASRSP, LXXVIII [1955], 61). It may be added that
under the date 1152, Robert of Torigni (Chronique, ed. by L. Deslisle [2
vols., Rouen, 1872-1873], I, 266) records that a young girl was inspired to
preach against the heresy of Henryr but there is no indication in that passage
of whether Henry was then at large, a prisoner, or dead. See also the dis¬
cussion in Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen, pp. 167-71, of how Henry’s fate
was confused with the punishment of Eudo of Brittany.

15. AN APPEAL TO BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

AND A SERMON IN REPLY

1. Under the year 1143, the annals of Brauweiler reported: “In Cologne,
in the church of the Blessed Peter, charges were brought against heretics
before Archbishop Arnold [1138-1151]. Several of these heretics were taken
and bound for the ordeal of water but they cleared themselves; others, how¬
ever, oppressed by their sense of guilt, took to flight. At Bonn, three were
put to death by fire at the command of Count Otto of Rheineck, for they
chose to die rather than to yield to the holy Catholic faith” (Annales Brun-
wilarensis, in MGH SS, XVI, 727). It seems likely, however, that this episode
preceded that which Eberwin describes (Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen,
pp. 55-57).
2. The extension of Bogomil influence from the Balkans into Western
Europe in the mid-twelfth century is discussed in Thouzellier, “H6resie et
croisade,” RHEy XLIX (1954), 855-72, esp. 858.
3. The assistant mentioned here may be the “elder son” of the Catharist
hierarchy (see No. 49, No. 51, §§ 8, 9).
4. On the apostolic tradition, for example, see No. 49, No. 55, I, 4; on
the rejection of this world, the Lord’s Prayer, baptism by imposition of
hands, see esp. No. 57; on the blessing of bread, see No. 49, No. 54, § 8b;
and on the heretical hierarchy, No. 49, No. 51, §§ 8-12.
5. The influence of Henry and Peter of Bruys on the heretics at Cologne
has been suggested, but the differences in views make that a doubtful con¬
clusion; see Manselli, Studi suite eresie, pp. 96-97.
Notes to Number 15 681

6. Vacandard, “Les Origines de l’h6resie,” RQH, LV (1894), 51, n. 1;

Jean Leclercq, “Recherches sur les Sermons sur les Cantiques de Saint
Bernard, IV: Les Etapes de la redaction,” Revue binedictine, LXV (1955),
246.
7. These are treated in Sermon 66 of the Sermones super Cantica canti-
corum (ed. by Leclerq et al., II, 178-88), which we have not translated be¬
cause it is concerned more with orthodox doctrine than with heretical tenets
and repeats much which appears elsewhere in this volume.
8. See source citation for part B.
4

9. Our No. 14, part A, and the two items here translated are found in
II, 707-10, and IV, 388-93, 393-98, respectively.
10. The letter of Eberwin is in II, 237-45; Sermon 65 is in II, 246-57.
11. We have not seen the work cited by Manselli: T. Paas, “Entstehung
und Geschichte des Klosters Steinfeld als Propstei,” Annalen des historischen
Vereins fur den Niederrein, XCIII (1912), 1-53.
12. Ps. 118 (A.V. 119): 162.
13. Ps. 144 (A.V. 145):7.
14. That is, the Canticle of Canticles.
15. John 2:10.
16. The reference is to the six waterpots of the feast at Cana (John
2:6-10).
17. The text reads hydria, but the plural seems to be called for.
18. I Tim. 4:1-3.
19. Cf. II Thess. 2:3.
20. II Thess. 2:4,9-10.
21. Adapted from Ps. 35 (A.V. 36):8-9, where the Psalmist is addressing
God.
22. That is, in Sermons 63 and 64 of this series.
23. Cf. Apoc. 20:7 and Isa. 13:6.
24. Cant. 2:15.
25. Matt. 7:16.
26. Matt. 3:11.
27. John 1:26.
28. Acts 9:17.
29. Reading with Mabillon (Vetera analecta sive collectio veterum aliquot
operum et opusculorum omnis generis, p. 474) et episcopi, which is omitted
by Migne.
30. Matt. 23:2-3. The last sentence is abbreviated in the text. We quote
the verse from the Douay Bible.
31. Reading with Mabillon (cited in n. 29, above) non, which is omitted
by Migne.
32. Reading propter for praeter of the text.
33. Mark 16:16.
34. See Matt. 19:3-9 for the quotations and the sense of the whole
passage.
682 Notes to Number 15
35. Heb. 13:4.
36. Eccles. 11:3.
37. Cant. 4:4.
38. Most of the other sources containing a reference to a “pope” among
the Cathars are cited in Borst, p. 210, n. 28. The circumstances surrounding
one such allegation in 1223 are discussed in Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare,
pp. 30-40; see p. 37, n. 3, for a summary of the verdicts of various scholars
on the question; cf. Runciman, Medieval Manichee, p. 162. There is no
convincing evidence that any Catharist leader attained such religious suprem¬
acy, to say nothing of presiding over a centralized organization, which, in
fact, did not exist.
39. Apostoli, apostolici: terms used by other twelfth-century writers to
refer to persons or groups who claimed to follow the manner of life of the
apostles (see also No. 16). Contemporaries may have seen in them some
similarity to the apostolici described by St. Augustine (De haeresibus,
trans. by Muller, pp. 78-81). These persons should not be confused with
the “Apostolics” of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries (see
No. 55, III) despite the similar motivations. See the Introduction, pp. 25-26
and n. 110, and, in addition to the works cited there, see Spading, De
A postolicis, Pseudo-apostolicis, A postolinis.
40. Cant. 2:15: “Catch us the little foxes that destroy the vines, for our
vineyard hath flourished.” These are Sermons 63 and 64, in which Bernard
discussed the mystical meaning of the foxes and the vine, applying it more
particularly to the temptations which may assail the monk. In the present
sermon he turns to the wider vineyard of the world. On “fox” as a syno¬
nym for “heretic,” see G. M. Dubarle, “Les Renards de Samson,” Revue
du moyen age latin, VII (1951), 174-76; and Y. M. Congar, “Henri de
Marcy,” Studia Anselmiana, XLIII; Analecta monastica, V (1958), p. 13,
n. 37.
41. Cf. Osee 9:14.
42. II Thess. 2:7.
43. Ps. 63 (A.V. 64):6.
44. See No. 9, n. 10.
45. Matt. 5:34, 35.
46. Luke 24:25.
47. Matt. 23:24.
48. Prov. 25:2, but Bernard alters the Vulgate text, reading revelare
for celare.
49. Cf. Matt. 7:6.
50. Cf. Rom. 12:3.
51. Bernard again reverses the thought of his biblical reference (Prov.
25:2), which reads: “It is the glory of God to conceal the word and the glory
of kings to search out [investigare for revelare of Bernard] the speech.” Cf.
n. 48, above.
52. Matt. 10:27.
Notes to Number 16 683
53. II Cor. 4:3.
54. Peter the Venerable mentions this point in discussing Peter of Bruys
(Migne, PL, CLXXXIX, 730).
55. Ps. 18:5 (A.V. 19:4).
56. Cf. Isa. 60:8.
57. The references to apostolic practice are perhaps based on I Cor.
7:25-29; 9:5-6. On the charge of sexual immorality, frequently made against
heretics, see No. 3, n. 13.
58. Ps. 72 (A.V. 73):6, with change from plural to singular.
59. Cant. 2:15.
60. Cf. Matt. 7:16.
61. The reference is perhaps to canon 3 of the Council of Nicea (a.d.
325): see Mansi, Concilia, II, 670.
62. Cf. Matt. 18:8-9; Mark 9:44-46.
63. Matt. 18:17.
64. Ps. 54:15 (A.V. 55:14).
65. Prov. 11:9.
66. Tit. 3:10,11.
67. Prov. 11:6.

16. A WARNING FROM PERIGUEUX

1. There is a shorter version, perhaps based on this letter, in the Annales

de Morgan, ed. by H. R. Luard, in Annales monastici, I, 15, under the year
1163. Scholars have proposed other dates, some as early as 1140. In putting
the letter about the year 1147, we follow Borst (pp. 4, n. 8, and 92, n. 12).
2. Borst, p. 4, n. 8.
3. The Annales de Morgan states that they prayed seven times by day
and as many by night. Each prayer among Cathars usually involved at least
eight genuflections (see No. 57); the total of genuflections is approximately
the same in both accounts. A century later they were said to pray fifteen
times a day, saying the Lord’s Prayer fifteen times on each occasion; see
No. 54, § 8a; cf. Borst, p. 191.
4. The doxok>gy which in the Authorized Version is added to the Lord’s
Prayer in Matt. 6:13—“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, forever. Amen.”—is not found in the Vulgate. It was included, how¬
ever, in Greek and Slavonic versions of the Bible (Runciman, Medieval
Manichee, p. 166), and was known and commented on by medieval theo¬
logians (see Dondaine, Un Traiti neo-manichien, p. 48, and Borst, p. 191,
n. 6). Cathars of the thirteenth century used the words in the Lord’s Prayer,
explaining that they came “from the Greek or Hebrew” (see No. 57, part A);
and their practice was a matter of reproach laid against them by Moneta of
Cremona (Adversus Catharos et Valdenses, p. 445). Dondaine (“L’Origine
de l’heresie medievale,” RSCI, VI [1952], 71-73) argues that their use of
the phrase is clear indication of their derivation from the Bogomils.
684 Notes to Number 16

5. The consecratory prayer in the Mass.

6. Ps. 113 (A.V. 115):4-8.
7. The Annales de Margan adds that Pons was accompanied by twelve
associates (magistri).

17. AN APPEAL FROM LIEGE TO THE POPE

1. The argument is that because the letter was written in the name of
the clergy of Liege rather than of a bishop, the see must have been vacant.
This was in fact the case between March 23, and May 13, 1145, from the
death of Bishop Alberon II to the election of his successor. See n. 3, below.
2. “Les Cathares de 1048-1054 & Liege,” Bulletin de la Societe d’art et
d'histoire du diocese de Liege, XLII (1961), 1-8. Russell concludes that news
of the death of Lucius II on February 15 would surely have reached Li&ge
before the see became vacant on March 23, and thus the letter could not have
been addressed to Lucius II. He discards the theory that the letter was written
during an interregnum at Liege. For various reasons, including the fact that
Wazo, bishop of Liege, was consulted about heresy (see No. 6), Russell dates
the incident between 1048 and 1054, the years of the pontificate of Leo IX.
3. Russell’s argument was rejected in a review note by H. Silvestre (RHE,
LVIII [1963], 979-80), who points out that Bishop Alberon II had been
forced by quarrels with his clergy to go to Rome to defend himself before
the pope. He was thus absent from his see from at least the beginning of
the year 1145, dying on the journey back from Rome. In his absence, the
clergy might well have presumed to address the pope in the name of their
church, rather than of their bishop. Bonenfant (“Un Clerc cathare,” MA,
LXIX [1963], 278-79) also challenges Russell, on the basis of rates of travel
in the Middle Ages.
4. Monte Guimari: identified formerly as a village in the Dauphine but
now more correctly as Montwimers (also known as Mont-Aime) in Cham¬
pagne, diocese of Chalons-sur-Mame (Russell [as cited in n. 2, above], pp.
2-3, cf. Borst, pp. 91-92). On heresy there in later years, see Chenon,
“L’Heresie a La Charite-sur-Loire,” Nouvelle revue historique de droit
frangais et etranger, XLI (1917), 301 ff.; and Haskins, Studies in Mediaeval
Culture, pp. 222-24.
5. The bishop of Liege was also temporal ruler in his diocese, and the
clergy could thus write of “our own” realm.

18. EUDO OF BRITTANY

1. Eudo, Eunus, Eons, Eum, Eys, Eus, are various forms of the name as
recorded in the sources. The surname de Stella, given only by William of
Newburgh, is inexplicable. Russell (Dissent and Reform, p. 289, n. 24) dis¬
cusses the problem of the name, opting for Eudo.
2. Chronicon Britannicum, in Bouquet, Recueil, XII, 558.
Notes to Number 18 685

3. Most of the sources are listed in Borst, p. 87, n. 20.

4. He is called a “would-be clergyman” who “arrogated to himself the
language of Scripture (yerbum predicationis)” by Otto of Freising in The
Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa by Otto of Freising and His Continuator,
Rahewin, trans. by C. C. Mierow, p. 94. After Eudo’s condemnation some
of his followers wandered about as penitents; see part B.
5. Other judgments are diverse. Alphandery (Les Idees morales, p. 102)
depicts Eudo against a background of Breton folklore, Celtic mysticism,
and contemporary belief in sorcery, and sees Gnostic influences at work
on him (see n. 17, below). Norman P. Zacour (“The Children’s Crusade,”
in Setton et al., History of the Crusades, II: The Later Crusades, pp. 328-
29) denies Gnostic influence and puts Eudo’s recruitment of followers down
to “a touch of madness in the air”; Cohn (Pursuit of the Millennium, pp.
38-40) accounts for the formation of his band in part by the unusual hard¬
ships caused by famine and severe winters in those years.
6. Kate Norgate, “William of Newburgh,” DNB, XXI, 360-63.
7< The statements in the Annales Magdeburgenses (MGH SS, XVI, 190)
and by Otto of Freising (see n. 4, above) that Eudo’s heresy also infected
Gascony might have arisen from the condemnation of heresiarchs in Gas¬
cony by the council (n. 9, below) or from confusing Eudo with Henry.
8. Eunus.
9. Eugene III (1145-1153). In so far as heresy was involved in the
deliberations of the council, Bernard of Clairvaux presented charges of
error relative to the Trinity against Gilbert de la Porr6e, bishop of Poitiers
(1142-1154), but was unable to obtain his condemnation; and in canon 18
the council forbade all persons to give support or shelter to heresiarchs and
their followers who frequented the regions of Gascony, Provence, or else¬
where—on pain of excommunication. There is no reference to Eudo by
name in the decrees of the council that have come down to us (see Mansi,
Concilia, XXI, 711-35; canon 18 is in col. 718).
10. Guiraud (Histoire de ITnquisition, I, 16) supposes it to have been the
bishop of Saint-Malo. Cf. part B.
11. Otto of Freising (cited in n. 4, above) identifies the jailer as Suger,
abbot of Saint-Denis and regent for Louis VII. But all other sources which
speak on this point say that Eudo was handed over to Samson, archbishop
of Rheims; and the Annales Parchenses (MGH 55, XVI, 605) although very
brief in this entry add, for what it may be worth, the confirmatory detail
that Eudo was confined in the porta Martis, which was, in fact, one of the
four principal gates to that city, and a strong fortress.
12. More probably by some Breton prelate, as related in part A.
13. He was bom in Loudeac (about forty-five miles southwest of Saint-
Malo) according to the Chronicon Britannicum, in Bouquet, Recueil, XII,
558.
14. See another story of magical repasts in No. 42, part B.
15. Per communionem Christianae gratiae.
686 Notes to Number 18

16. Cf. Rom. 1:28.

17. Sapientiam ... Scientiam ... Judicium: names of three of the eons
in the Gnostic pleroma. Paul Alphandery (“Le Gnosticisme,” RHPR, VII
[1927], 394-411, esp. 398-99, 400-1) suggests that this is one of the indica¬
tions of the continuance of Gnosticism in Western Europe throughout the
Middle Ages.
18. The difference between the penalty imposed on Eudo and that for
his followers may have been due to the council’s recognizing Eudo as
demented and remanding him to protective custody. Otto of Freising, who
was not present at the council, implies this by saying he was “undeserving
of the name of heretic.”
19. The biblical reference to Dathan and Abiron is Deut. 11:6.

19. ARNOLD OF BRESCIA

1. A biography of Arnold in English is George W. Greenaway’s Arnold

of Brescia. For the sources, see Pietro Fedele, Fonti per la storia di Arnaldo
da Brescia, and Arsenio Frugoni, Arnaldo da Brescia nelle fonti del secolo
XII. Borst (p. 88, n. 23) gives references to the various judgments of
scholars on Arnold’s relationship to contemporary heresies. The Arnoldists
are discussed in Ilarino da Milano, UEresia di Ugo Speroni, pp. 444-52.
See also Francesco Cognasso, “Filii Arnaldi,” Aevum, XXXI (1958), 183ff.,
and the rejoinder by Frugoni, “Filii Arnaldi (per l’interpretazione di un
passo di Ottone Morena),” BISIAM, LXX (1959), 521-24.
2. There is a biography by C. C. J. Webb, John of Salisbury. Our para¬
graph is based primarily on the sketch of John of Salisbury in the Intro¬
duction to Miss Chibnall’s translation (pp. xi-xlvi). John was not primarily
a historian, but “the most exacting modern research has never found him
guilty of worse errors of fact in historical writing than occasional slips in
chronology or place names” (ibid., p. xxxv).
3. For further details regarding Otto see the introductions to Professor
Mierow’s translations of The Two Cities (pp. 3-23) and The Deeds of
Frederick Barbarossa (pp. 4-6).
4. Eugene III was at Tusculum in October, 1149, and at the Lateran over
the following winter. He left the city again in June, 1150, the negotiations
having failed.
5. For the relations of Arnold of Brescia with Eugene III, see Wilhelm
von Giesebrecht, “Uber Arnold von Brescia,” Sitzungsberichte der konig-
lichen bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Miinchen: Philoso-
phisch-philologische und historische Klasse, III (1873), 122-54; R. L. Poole,
ed., Joannis Saresberiensis historia pontificalis (Oxford, 1927), Preface, p. vi;
and Helmut Gleber, Papst Eugen III (1145-1153), pp. 27-33 [C].
6. Hyacinth Orsini, cardinal-deacon of Saint-Mary-in-Cosmedin and
many years later Pope Celestine III (1191-1198).
7. Abelard had gone to the council convoked at Sens to defend himself
Notes to Number 20 687

against the attacks of Bernard of Clairvaux, but hardly had the council
opened than he appealed to the pope and departed. En route to Rome, he
stopped to rest at Cluny and stayed. With the help of Peter the Venerable,
he made peace with St. Bernard after the pope had affirmed the condem¬
nation of his doctrines by the Sens assemblage; and at Chalons-sur-Marne
on April 21, 1142, he died.
8. St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux [C].
9. Poole has dated this reconciliation in 1146, not 1145 as earlier writers
believed (Hist. pont.9 Preface, pp. lxiv-lxv); and his dating is supported by
Gleber (Papst Eugen III, pp. 30-32). Arnold cannot, then, have become
associated with the political movement in Rome before 1147 [C].
10. Heresis Lumbardorum.
11. John 2:16.
12. Mark 11:17.
13. Cf. Ps. 5:7 (A.V. 6); 25 (A.V. 26):9. Arnold may have been moved to
the statement by the attack of Eugene on Rome in 1149 [C].
14. For the date 1147, see n. 9, above.
15. Hadrian IV, the Englishman Nicholas Breakspear (1154-1159). Fred¬
erick met the pope at Sutri, just southwest of Viterbo, June 8, 1155 [M].
16. Cf. Matt. 7:15.
17. Post se duxit, immo seduxit [M].
18. The Lateran Council in 1139, held under Innocent II (1130-1143)
[MJ.
19. Otto makes no reference to Arnold’s activity in France, 1139-1141.
20. Ecclus. 8:4.
21. It was this street fighting which led Hadrian IV to impose an interdict
on Rome during Holy Week, to last until Arnold was expelled.
22. Celestine II (1143-1144) [M].
23. The date is uncertain; it was probably after the emperor left Rome in
June, 1155. Arnold’s execution was technically on the grounds of rebellion
(Maisonneuve, p. 145).

20. CIVIL UNREST AS A BACKGROUND FOR HERESY

1. The major sources for the story of heresy in Italy in the twelfth and
early thirteenth centuries are the polemical tracts (see Nos. 21 and 23-26),
supplemented by the letters of the popes. There is a sketch of the develop-
*

ment of the Cathars at this time in Borst, pp. 99-104, passim, with abundant
citations to sources and literature.
2. The name Cathari for dualist heretics was first used in narratives of
♦

the examination of heretics at Cologne in 1163 (see No. 39). Its occurrence
as heresis Cattorum in a document formerly thought to have been issued in
1152-1156 is probably better dated 1164-1167 (see Bonenfant, “Un Clerc
cathare,” M/4, LXIX [1963], 272-74). Although their connection with the
Catharistae, a branch of the Manichaeans known to St. Augustine, has been
688 Notes to Number 20

suggested, the derivation of the name from the Greek KaBapoq is generally
accepted: “Cathars, that is, pure” (Eckbert of Schonau, Sermones tredecim
contra catharos, in Migne, PL, CXCV, 13, 31). The name caught on with
Catholic writers after it was used by the Third Lateran Council in 1179
(canon 27: Mansi, Concilia, XXII, 231-33), and in the Middle Ages other
etymologies were suggested: from “cat,” for example, or from the root catha,
meaning “purifying flow” (see No. 35, no. 4). A great many variations in
spelling are found, and the word is said to have been transliterated into the
German Ketzer, Polish Kacerz, and Czech Kacyr (Borst, 240-41, 253); al¬
though the derivation is contested by scholars who prefer to derive Ketzer from
the Walloon catier (cat): Y. M. J. Congar, “Arriana haeresisRSPT, XLIII
(1959), 457.

21. THE LETTER OF MASTER VACARIUS

AGAINST THE ERRORS OF HUGO SPERONI

1. Speronistae: They were condemned in a statute promulgated against

various sects by Frederick II in 1220. Thereafter the name is often found in
the imperial and papal decrees against heresy (Ilarino da Milano, UEresia
di Ugo Speroni, p. 38, n. 1). Two other tracts of Italian origin, one by a
layman of Piacenza, the other probably written by a Dominican who had
been a prior of the convent there, comment on the Speronists; see No. 45,
parts B and C.
2. Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie medioevali,” in Grande antol. filos., IV,
1603.
3. The writer referred to here is now generally called “the Pseudo-
Dionysius.” During the Middle Ages he was incorrectly identified as the
Athenian converted to Christianity by St. Paul (Acts 17:34), and by tradi¬
tion he was revered as a martyr and the first bishop of Athens. He was often
confused with St. Denis, the martyred first bishop of Paris. The works as¬
signed to the Pseudo-Dionysius were probably written in the fifth century
and were widely read in the Middle Ages in the Latin translation made by
John Scotus Erigena in the mid-ninth century. Ilarino da Milano (UEresia
di Ugo Speroni, p. 485, n. 5) identifies this passage as a reference to Letter 8
and quotes the pertinent lines from that source which, in translation, read
as follows: “How may they who know not His virtue make known to the
people the divine virtues? Or how may they of darkened understanding give
enlightenment? .... If, then, the function of the priesthood is enlightenment,
he who offers no enlightenment—or, rather, is himself without light—
wholly lapses from the sacerdotal office and power.... For such a one is
not a priest—no, he is not!—but an enemy, crafty, deluding himself, a wolf
clad in sheep’s clothing amid the holy flock.” There is an English translation
of the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius by the Rev. John Parker, The Works
of Dionysius the Areopagite. The passage in question is in II, 157-58 (Letter
8, § 2).
Notes to Number 22 689

4. This theme is discussed in Hugo’s treatise {UEresia di Ugo Speroni,

pp. 506-10) under the heading, “That only to those who from eternity are
inwardly purified is given external purity.” The exposition reveals that Hugo
Speroni conceived of true inner purity existing only in those predestined
by God to be His elect; and external purity was truly acquired only by
those to whom, before time began, was given inner purity. The citations of
the apostle Paul on which he based his concept of predestined worth were
Ephes. 1:3-5 and II Tim. 1:8-10, to which he also added Jas. 1:17.
5. See Job 15:15, also 4:18.
6. Num. 19:22.
7. This is the sense, but not the exact wording, of Hagg 2:13-14.
8. Ezech. 22:26.
9. Cf. Gen. 17:14.
10. I Pet. 3:18 and Rom. 6:9, respectively.
11. Cf. Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 8:1-9; and John 6:4-14.
12. I Cor. 11:23-24.
13. This part of the line is illegible in the manuscript.
14. Cf. I Cor. 11:20-22.
15. The sense, but not the exact wording, of Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-
25; Luke 22:17-20.
16. I Tim. 2:1.
17. I Cor. 3:7, with a slight change in wording.
18. Ps. 49 (A.V, 50): 16. Justicias is translated as “justices” in the Douay,
“precepts” in the New Catholic edition, and “statutes” in the Authorized
Version.
19. Cf. Matt. 23:3.
20. Cf. I Cor. 11:18.
21. I Cor. 11:21.
22. I Cor. 11:22.
23. I Cor. 11:29-30.
24. Gal. 5:14.
25. II Thess. 3-10.
26. Several letters in the manuscript are illegible. The words in brackets
are our conjecture.
27. Cf. Exod. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15.
28. Ephes. 5:19; Col. 3:16.
29. Cf. Matt. 19:16-18; Mark 10:17-19; Luke 18:20.
30. I Cor. 3:6, 8.
31. Horace Ep. i.xvi.48.
32. Corp. iur. civ., Digest l. 17.202.
33. Some letters are illegible in the manuscript.

22. THE ORIGINS OF THE HUMILIATI

1. Probably at the Third Lateran Council (March, 1179). This passage

690 Notes to Number 22

appears in the Laon chronicle under the year 1178, but the chronicler used
the system of dating which begins the year with Easter. In 1179 Easter fell
on April 1.
2. The Humiliati were among the sects condemned by Lucius III in the
bull Ad abolendam, issued in 1184 at Verona, where Emperor Frederick
Barbarossa also proscribed the sects. Davison (Forerunners of St, Francis,
p. 193, n. 1) and Pouzet (“Les Origines lyonnaises de la secte des vaudois,”
Revue dhistoire de Veglise de France, XXII [1936], 18) refer to a presumed
earlier condemnation at Rome in 1181 which was “renewed” at Verona in
1184. We know of no such earlier action.

23. THE HERESY OF THE CATHARS IN LOMBARDY

1. The confession of the convert Bonacursus was recorded a few years

earlier; see No. 25.
2. Dondaine (“La Hierarchie cathare, I,” AFP, XIX [1949], 287, 290-91)
calls him a Lombard and puts the date of writing before 1214-1215, perhaps
as early as 1203. Borst (pp. 10-11) gives the date “about 1200” and suggests
that he might have been a Milanese and a converted heretic.
3. Recueil de Vhistoire de Veglise, p. 268; see Dondaine, “La Hierarchie
cathare, I,” AFP, XIX (1949), 281-82.
4. Dondaine ([as cited in n. 3], pp. 282-83, 294-305) discusses the bor¬
rowed portions.
5. The title is that supplied by Dondaine.
6. See p. 32, above.
7. See pp. 41-43, above.
8. Savino Savini, II Catarismo italiano, attempts to give further precision
to the chronology and the sectarian divisions, but the conclusions are not
always reliable.
9. For more detailed information on Mark, see No. 24.
10. Habet ordinem suum de Bulgaria: This designated, as we have said,
a Bogomil sect which taught mitigated dualism and was probably located
in the vicinity of present-day Skoplje in Yugoslavia (Borst, p. 244). Deriva¬
tives such as Bulgari, Burgari, Bulgri, and Bougres gained currency in
northern Europe with the general meaning of “heretics” (ibid,, p. 250, n. 7,
for pertinent sources). Our “consecrated in the sect” reveals the problem of
rendering the Latin word, ordo, which here bespeaks a distinctive heretical
concept. The consolamentum, the heretical baptism by imposition of hands,
as we shall see in subsequent pieces, set its recipients apart; for, by receiving
that consecration (ordinamentum Christi) handed down by authentic tradi-
♦

tion from Christ and His disciples, their souls had found the way of return
to heaven. Only they were capable of transmitting the same gift of salvation
to others. But the consolamentum was also bestowed within a doctrinal
tradition: the “sect” (ordo) of Bulgaria—mitigated dualists—was at sharp
odds with that of Drugunthia—radical or absolute dualists. Thus the word
Notes to Number 23 691
ordo merges two concepts: (1) the spiritual status of the Elect, which was
attained only within (2) the sect which its members regarded as the true
Church of Christ (cf. the phrase in No. 57, part A: “the Church and its
holy order”). This usage was known to Catholic contemporaries after about
1160; see the references compiled in Borst, p. 206, n. 14. But in yet
another context the word ordo denotes the episcopal status; see No. 51, § 8.
The bishop, chosen by his church, was confirmed in office by repetition of
the consolamentum. If there was a change in the ritual for such occasions,
no record of it has been discovered.
11. The name and title (papa, meaning “priest”) are the same in No. 24,
but are spelled Papasniquinta in the report of a heretical council discussed
in the following note. The date of Nicheta’s mission, 1167 or a little later,
is fixed by that assigned to the council.
12. This is reported to have occurred at a council of heretics held in
Saint-Felix-de-Caraman, a village not far from Toulouse, where Nicheta and
Mark met with Cathars of northern and southern France. Nicheta induced
all of them to accept the cult of radical dualism and to receive the con-
solamentum at his hands. Administrative decisions were made, establishing
three new bishoprics in Toulouse, Carcassonne, and Val d’Aran (or perhaps
Agen) in addition to the existing dioceses in northern France and at Albi.
The only record of the council was published in 1660 from a manuscript
now lost which purported to be a copy, dated 1232, of the proceedings of
the council. The authenticity of the record was upheld against various doubts
by Dondaine (“Les Actes du concile albigeois de Saint-Felix-de-Caraman,”
in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, V, 324-55). Subsequently Dondaine has
agreed that 1167, the date originally given for the council, might be altered
to one somewhat later (“La Hi6rarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950],
268). Y. M. J. Congar (“Henry de Marcy, abbe de Clairvaux, cardinal-
eveque d’Albano et legat pontifical,” Studia Anselmiana, XLIII; Analecta
monastica, V [1958], 9, n. 27) argues on other grounds that the later date
is preferable. The earlier doubts about the actual occurrence of the council
have recently been revived by Yves Dossat (“Remarques sur un pretendu
eveque cathare du Val d’Aran en 1167,” Bulletin philologique et historique
du Comite des travaux historiques et scientifiques, Annees 1955-1956, pp.
339-47). Dossat thinks that the report of the council may be a sixteenth-
century forgery and particularly that there is no reason to credit the existence
of a Catharist bishop of Val d’Aran. C. Thouzellier (Catharisme et valde-
isme, p. 14, n. 7) agrees with Dossat’s second point.
13. Drugonthie: The name is found in several sources in a wide variety
of spellings (e.g., Dugunthia, Drugontie, Drugutis, Dorgovetis). The refer¬
ence is to the sect of Bogomil absolute dualists in the region of Dragovitsa
in Thrace; see Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 63, and Borst, pp.
213, n. 2; and 244.
692 Notes to Number 23

15. Simon was evidently a bishop of the absolute dualist sect of Bogomils.
His name has been preserved only in this source (Borst, pp. 100, 203, n. 2)
unless, as Runciman (Medieval Manichee, p. 73) suggests, he might possibly
be identified with Nipon, a Bogomil monk active in Constantinople in 1144-
1147.
16. John Judeus is named in No. 24 as a weaver, one of the early com¬
panions in heresy of Mark, and he is one of the bishops who, in a summa
attributed to St. Peter Martyr, were said to have lost their churches (Kappeli,
“Une Somme contre les heretiques,” AFP, XVII [1947], 306). The conno¬
tation of Judeus (Jew? convert from Christianity to Judaism and thence to
dualism? a former Passagian?) is uncertain (Borst, pp. 99, n. 6; and 235).
17. On Peter of Florence, see also No. 24.
18. The basis for this appeal may be explained by the statement in No. 24
that Italian Catharism arose from missionary activity from a center in
France. Borst (p. 93) suggests that the first Catharist bishopric in the West
may have been established at Montwimers (Mont-Aime), on which see
No. 17, n. 4.
19. Sine omni condictione: corrected by Borst (p. 101, n. 10) from the
sine condictione of the text.
20. A village between Mantua and Cremona (Dondaine, “La Hierarchic
cathare, I,” AFP, XIX [1949], 285, n. 10).
21. Garattus: His name, variously spelled (Garrat us, Garathus, Gazarus),
is mentioned by Salvo Burci about 1235 (Ilarino da Milano, “I ‘Liber supra
Stella’ del piacentino Salvo Burci contra i Catari e altre correnti ereticali,
Aevum, XIX [1945], 323); and in the tract attributed to Peter Martyr (see
n. 16, above) he is called a bishop who lost his church. The sect name
Garatenses (also in the sources as Garacti) was derived from him; see No.
54, § 2. See also Borst, pp. 236, 244, and the polemic against them in
No. 59, part V.
22. John de Judice: He is one of the bishops who lost their churches,
according to Peter Martyr (cited in n. 16), who perhaps refers to the lot¬
casting here described. See also n. 29, below.
23. Desenzano: The name is encountered in several sources in various
spellings (Descenzano, Diszennzano, Donnezacho, etc.). The place is iden¬
tified as Desenzano sul Lago, in the province of Brescia (Dondaine, “La
Hierarchie cathare, II-IH,” AFP, XX [1950], 281). The sect itself is dis¬
cussed in § 2a of the present tract; they were called the Albanenses at least
by 1235 (see No. 45, part B), a name which they themselves adopted (see
No. 59, IV, 6). That term may derive either from a person (a bishop named
Albanus is suggested by Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,’ AFP,
XX [1950], 284, 286) or a place. If the latter, Albano S. Alessandro, about
six miles east of Brescia has been suggested as most likely (Ilarino da
Milano, “II ‘Liber supra Stella,”’ Aevum, XVI [1942], 310).
24. Johannes Bellus: Dondaine (La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX
[1950], 285) suggests that his name might be a latinization of the Greek
Notes to Number 23 693
■

Kaloian, which is also the name of a bishop of the Mantuan faction men¬
tioned below.
25. Amezo here but Amizo later in this treatise (§§ 1, 2a, 3), where he is
spoken of as still an elder son.
26. Coloiannes, but Caloiannes in a later passage (2b). In No. 24 the
name is Caloianus. Salvo Burci, in 1235, knew the name of his sect as the
Caloiani (see No. 45, part B), and the spelling we adopt is preferred by
Dondaine (“La Hterarchie cathare, 11-111,” AFP, XX [1950], 295). Borst
(p. 237) uses the Greek form Kaloian.
27. “Sclavonia... that is, Bosnia,” in No. 24. See the discussion of its
geographical location in Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, pp. 33-35.
28. He is called Nicola of Vicenza is a later passage, and Nicola of the
March of Treviso in No. 24, where he is depicted as the instigator of the
schism. A church of Vicenza or of the March of Treviso is discussed in
No. 51, §§ 14,15,27.
29. Their groups are called the church of Florence or of Tuscany, and
the church of Spoleto or the Spoletan Valley in No. 51, §§ 14,15. Peter of
Florence was the first bishop of the first of these (see No. 24) and Dondaine
(“La HiSrarchie cathare, II-IIIAFP, XX [1950], 302) suggests that John
de Judice was the first prelate of the church of Spoleto.
30. Joseph was one of Mark’s early companions in heresy, a smith from
the same village; see No. 24. A sect called the Josephini or Josephistae,
whose doctrines are not precisely known, is linked with him by Dondaine
(“La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 290, n. 1) but Boist
(p. 112, n. 11) dissents. See also Uarino da Milano, UEresia di Ugo Speroni,
pp. 457-60.
31. Presumably in the ritual greetings between the Perfect, an example
of which will be found in No. 54, § 9.
32. The events discussed in the preceding paragraph probably took place
between 1175 and 1190; see the list of bishops in Dondaine, “La Hierarchie
cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX (1950), 295 ff., and Borst, pp. 235-39. Savini,
II catarismo, passim, argues for putting the dates a little later.
33. The place is the modern Sojano del Lago, near Desenzano. Marchisius
was probably the second bishop of Desenzano after the schism and presided
about 1180 or 1185 (Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX
[1950], 285; Borst, p. 236).
34. Mundiali machina: Durand of Huesca Liber contra manicheos uses
these and similar words (mundana machina, machina mundi) often, saying
that they refer to the present age or life, as opposed to the life of the future
(pp. 113, 114), to the heavens, earth, seas, air, and all the things visible
therein (p. 122), but that they do not, as heretics say, mean a world which
has its own prince and hates Christ (pp. 118, 128). See Borst {pp. 153,
371) for the use of a similar phrase in other documents.
35. John 8:44, with changes in the concluding words.
36. Isa. 14:13.
694 Notes to Number 23
37. The words in brackets were added by the editor, who took them from
sources which probably depended on this treatise.
38. Luke 16:1.
39. Apoc. 12:9.
40. Apoc. 12:4.
41. Ezech. 37:4.
42. Luke 9:56.
43. Matt. 15:24.
44. Matt. 18:11.
45. Ps. 78 (A.V. 79): 1.
46. II Tim. 4:8.
47. John 16:11.
48. Reading animabus for the spiritibus animabus of the text, which was
perhaps a slip of the scribe’s pen. A related version of the text has animabus
only (Celestin Douais, La Somme des autorites a Vusage des predicateurs
meridionaux au Xllle siecle, p. 123).
49. I Thess. 5:23.
50. On Caloiannes and Sclavonia, see nn. 26, 27, above; on Garattus and
Bulgaria, nn. 21, 10, above.
51. That is. within the matter first created by God, not yet differentiated
into its elements.
52. Matt. 18:28. See this myth in more detail in No. 50, part C.
53. John 3:6.
54. Cf. John 11:49-51.
55. A village about twelve miles northeast of Milan; its location, long in
doubt, is established in No. 24. From it came the sect name Concorezzenses.
56. Further details on Nazarius are given in No. 51, § 25, that he in¬
troduced the apocryphal Secret Supper {No. 56) to the West; and in No. 54,
§ 3, that he was a bishop for forty years. Henri Gregoire (“Cathares d’Asie
Mineure, d’ltalie et de France,” in Memorial Louis Petit, p. 145) says he
was a Greek or a Greco-SlaV. Borst (p. 236) places his episcopate in the
years 1195-1235.
57. Neither Gerald nor the Aldricus and Prandus whose names appear a
few lines later are otherwise known.
58. Mentioned also in No. 54, § 2, as the bishop from whom the sect-
name Bagnolenses was derived. Bagnolo is probably the present Bagnolo
San Vito, a few miles from Mantua (Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare,
II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 294).
59. Peter Gallus is also named in No. 27 as a bishop who got into
difficulties with his church. For other references to him in the sources, see
Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX (1950), 297-98.

24. THE ORIGINS OF THE CATHARS IN ITALY

1. Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX (1950), 250, 252-

Notes to Number 24 695

53; see also Borst, p. 23, n. 6.

2. Dondaine (as cited in n. 1), pp. 259-62, on the author; pp. 263-65
on the similarities to and differences from the De heresi catharorum in
regard to the events here discussed.
3. As earlier documents also have shown (see No. 2, n. 2), a direct relation¬
ship between Manichaeans and Cathars was generally assumed in the Middle
Ages. On Mani, see the Introduction, p. 12.
4. The identification of Philadelphia (Filadelfie) is disputed. Dondaine
(Un Traiti neo-manicheen, p. 62) argues for the ancient Philadelphia in
Lydia, near Laodicea, today called Alashehr.
5. It seems indisputable that the reference is to the crusade of 1147-
1148, rather than to the First Crusade or the conquest of Constantinople
in 1204; see Borst, p. 90, and Thouzellier, “Heresie et croisade,” RHEf
XLIX (1954), 859-62.
6. Today Cologno-Monzeze, about four miles from Milan on the road
to Monza (Dondaine, “La HiSrarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950],
244).
7. Today the Porta Venezia. “Conrencia” derives from Concorezzo.
8. He is not otherwise known.
9. Today a village about seven miles from Cuneo (Dondaine, “La Hi6r~
archie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 244).
10. This is probably a reference to the probationary period required
before one could receive the consolamentum. See No. 57.
11. He is not otherwise known.
12. Argentea: Dondaine (“La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX
[1950], 242) suggests various possible identifications but the place referred
to cannot now be precisely named.
13. He is not otherwise known.
14. The same belief was reported from Languedoc early in the thirteenth
century (No. 38, § 17) and was also attributed to some heretics burned in
Alsace in 1212. A thirteenth-century inquisitor, known as the “Pseudo-
Rainerius” (see item xxiii in the Appendix) lists it as one of the beliefs of the
Runcarii, a faction in the Waldenslan movement (Bibliotheca maxima
veterum patrum [Lyons, 1677], XXV, 266. The error had been attributed
by St. Augustine to the ancient Paterniani or Venustiani, who held that the
lower parts of the body were of the devil’s making (De haeresibus, trans. by
Muller, pp. 118-19). Whether the medieval mention of it shows the survival
of an ancient error, or shows that heretics coined it anew or that Catholics
familiar with St. Augustine decided it was an appropriate charge to make
against those who saw the devil as master of men’s bodies we have no way
of knowing.
15. Octo de Bagnolo here but we follow the spelling of his name given in
No. 23.
16. Anselm ignores the church of the Spoletan Valley alluded to indirectly
in No. 23, § 1, and directly by Rainerius Sacconi (No. 51, §§ 14, 15).
696 Notes to Number 25

25. BONACURSUS: A DESCRIPTION OF

THE CATHARIST HERESY

1. What is said in this tract about the Passagians is translated in No. 26,
n. 86. The Arnoldists presumably derived from the influence of Arnold of
Brescia (No. 19). On them, see esp. Ilarino da Milano, UEresia di Ugo
Speroni, pp. 444-52; also p. 30, above.
2. For the somewhat tangled history of the manuscripts and their publi¬
cation, see pp. 281-89 of this article, where are printed excerpts from a
version found in a manuscript of the Vatican library (MS Ottob. lat. 136).
From them we have in three instances drawn readings which for clarity
or completeness seem preferable to the text printed in Migne.
3. Episcopum doctorem in Migne, PL, OCIV, 775; ipsorum doctorem
in MS Ottob. lat. 136 (Ilarino da Milano, “La ‘Manifestatio heresis cata-
rorum,*” Aevum, XII [1938], 296), which we follow here. In noting variants
hereafter we will refer to these two versions as Migne and Ilarino da Milano,
respectively.
4. The passage from the words “not only terrifying” through the quota¬
tion from Luke 10:30 a few lines below, was copied into a collection of
materials compiled to illustrate sectarian quarrels among heretics, in B.N.
MS lat. 14927, fol. llv. Later on in the same manuscript the scribe copied
a version of the whole confession. See Manselli, “Per la storia delFeresia,”
BISIAM, LXVII (1955), 192 ff.
5. Luke 10:30. This verse is not quoted in the version printed by Manselli
(“Per la storia dell’eresia,” BISIAM, LXVII [1955], 206-10). In noting
variants hereafter we will refer to this version as Manselli.
6. This passage varies somewhat in all the versions we have been able
to examine. We follow Ilarino da Milano (p. 296): Evam dicunt [diabolum]
fecisse cum qua cumcubuit et inde natus est Caytt; investigatione cuius
Adam Evam cognovit, et peperit Abel quern occidit Cayn, de sanguine cuius
dicunt natos esse canes-A version from Lucca MS 2110 (printed by
Manselli, p. 207) is close to this. That from B.N. MS lat. 14927, as printed
by Manselli (p. 206), is: ... cum qua concubuit et inde natus est [Manselli
indicates a lacuna at this point but there is none in the MS] Abel quern
dicunt quod occidit Caym et sanguine eius nati sunt canes.... Migne (cols.
775-76) is shorter: Evam dicunt fecisse cum qua concubuit et inde natus est
*

Cain, de sanguine cuius dicunt natos esse canes....

7. The two preceding sentences, from the words “The union of Adam”
to “by the devil” are not found in the text printed by Manselli.
8. Cf. Gen. 6:2-4.
9. Cf. Gen. 6:7.
10. Cf. Gen. 7:1.
11. Cf. Ecclus. 44:16; Heb. 11:5.
12. The words “God’s speaking to Moses” are not found in the text
printed by Manselli.
Notes to Number 26 697
13. I Thess. 5:21. This verse is not quoted in the text printed by Manselli.
14. Cf. IV Kings (A.V. II Kings) 2:11.
15. Luke 7:28.
16. Luke 7:19.
17. The preceding passage, from the words “than whom none is greater”
to “not of man,” is not found in the text printed by Manselli. For the
phrase on the birth of Mary, we follow Ilarino da Milano (p. 297) because
Migne has the indication of a lacuna in the text of this passage.
18. Animation corpus in Migne (col. 777); corpus humanum in Manselli
(p. 208).
19. In Manselli (p. 208), this sentence reads: “They damn the innocents
[i.e., children massacred by Herod] and likewise each thief.”
20. John 14:28.
21. Apoc. 13. Cf. Matt. 24:25: “The abomination of desolation...
standing in the holy place.”
22. Pope Sylvester I (314-335), supposed recipient of the Donation of
Constantine.
23. II Thess. 2:3,4. These verses are not quoted in the text of Manselli.
24. This statement on baptism of water is deferred in Manselli to follow
the one on oaths (p. 210).
25. Cf. Nos. 50, part C; 54, § 3.
26. The last sentence and “Amen” are not found in Manselli, but several
other tenets are listed (p. 210); that passage, translated here by permission
of the lstituto storico italiano per il medio evo, reads: “They say that to
pray for the dead or to do any other good work avails naught. Also, they
say that the saints who now are asleep with Christ do not pray for us or for
any person living in the world. They say that the soul of every man, at the
moment of leaving the body, shall enter either into eternal rest, if it so
merits, or eternal burning; and never in any place other than this world
alone is purgation undergone for offenses, that is, for their sins. They say
also that in this eternal beatitude or in this eternal punishment, all shall be
equal in glory and no one shall precede another in love, and all in hell will
be equally tormented. They believe that no Jew can be saved. There are also
many among them so stupid as not to believe that the substance of highest
divinity is so incomprehensible or uncircumscribed that it cannot be com¬
prehended or circumscribed in any place.”

26. THE HERESY OF THE PASSAGIANS

1. On various Latin spellings of the name in the sources, see Garvin and
Corbett, eds., The Summa contra haereticos Ascribed to Praepositinus of
Cremona, p. xxxiii, n. 7. Pasagini is preferred in manuscripts of that treatise,
but we have kept the double s, more familiar in modern orthography. On
the origin of the name there is no generally accepted explanation (see the
works cited in the introduction to this piece).
698 Notes to Number 26
2. A sect of Circumcisers (Circumcisi) is sometimes named together with
the Passagians in contemporary documents. About 1235 the Circumcisers
were charged with insisting on circumcision and the sacraments of the Old
Law (see No. 45, part C, § 24), and in other documents the names of the
two groups appear both separately and together: in an imperial constitution
of 1220, Circumcisers but not Passagians, are mentioned; in another of
1238-1239, both are named, as they are in an antiheretical tract dating from
about the middle of the century; in the edict of 1184 and in a bull of 1229,
Passagians only. These and other sources are listed by llarino da Milano,
(UEresia di Ugo Speroni, pp. 38, n. 1; 437, n. 3; 438, n. 1), who there con¬
cluded (p. 438) that the references are to the same sect, but subsequently he
remarked (in “Le eresie medioevali,” in Grande antol. filos., IV, 1618) that
the Circumcisers were probably a separate party, who did not reject Chris¬
tian sacraments but did require in addition to them the strict observance of
Mosaic Law and especially circumcision.
3. Various judgments have been made by scholars: that the Passagians
were an offshoot of the Cathars; that they were a reaction against Catharist
attacks on the Old Testament; that they were somehow related to the
Waldenses (see the references cited in Borst, p. 112, n. 11).
4. The Summa Ascribed to Praepositinus, pp. xiv-xv.
5. Charles Molinier, “Les Passagiens,” Memoires de VAcademie des scien¬
ces, inscriptions, et belles-lettres de Toulouse, 8th ser., X (1888), 448-49.
6. A portion of the treatise found under the name of Bonacursus (No. 25)
also presents Passagian doctrines; the passage is translated in n. 86, below.
7. The name of Prevostin is coupled with the tract in one manuscript and
his authorship was proposed by George Lacombe, who admitted that the
proof was not decisive (La Vie et les oeuvres de Prevostin, pp. 43, 131-52; cf.
his “Prevostin,” DTC, XIII, 165-66). One manuscript gives the author’s name
as G. Pergamensis; two name him as Magister Gallus (perhaps indicating
only that he was French; see The Summa Ascribed to Praepositinus, p. xiii).
Kappeli (“Une Somme contre les heretiques,” AFP, XVII [1947], 311, n. 36)
speculates on the possibility that the heretic Peter Gallus might have written
the tract after he was converted to Catholicism.
8. The Summa Ascribed to Praepositinus, p. xv, although a date as late
as 1230 has been advanced elsewhere; see Borst, p. 14, n. 3.
9. Dondaine (“Nouvelles Sources,” RSPT, XXVIII [1939], 482) suggested
that the number of manuscripts and the variations in the tradition of the
text might be explained if the treatise had been used for instruction and the
manuscripts were copies produced by students.
10. They may have been Waldenses or some associated group, for, while
they accepted the validity of the priestly orders and the Eucharist, their com¬
plaints against the Church are characteristic of the Waldenses and their
“fellow travelers.”
11. We adapt the phrase from Borst, who discussed this type of anti¬
heretical literature (pp. 13-21).
Notes to Number 26 699
12. Garvin and Corbett have traced the author’s dependence on Peter
Lombard and the glossators for the exposition of texts cited by both Catholic
and heretic. We have only occasionally reproduced these references in our
notes, although we have thankfully profited by their apparatus in general.
13. See their remarks on the problem in their Introduction, pp. 1-lv.
lvii-lviii.
14. Numerous other works which touch, for the most part quite briefly,
on the author and the treatise are cited in Borst, p. 14, n. 3.
15. Isa. 44:24,26.
16. Isa. 42:1, but the last four words are from Matt. 12:18.
17. Isa. 45:8, a few words omitted.
18. Creavit me: In the Vulgate Prov. 8:22 reads possedit me in initio
viarum suarum, which is translated in the Douay and King James versions
as “possessed me in the beginning of his ways” (or “way”); in the Revised
Standard Version as “created me at the beginning of his work.” The reading
“way(s>” is based on the Hebrew; “works” on the Greek of the Septuagint.
The Hebrew qandh can mean either “possessed” or “created.” Cf. Inter¬
preter's Bible, IV, 830.
19. Ecclus. 1:4.
20. Ecclus. 24:14.
21. Matt. 20:8.
22. Matt. 28:18.
23. Mark 13:32.
24. John 5:46.
25. Matt. 26:39
26. John 10:33-36, with some changes in wording.
27. Ps. 81 (A.V. 82):6.
28. John 17:22.
29. John 10:30.
30. John 14:28.
31. I Cor. 15:28.
32. Isa. 42:8.
33. Ecclus. 31:10.
34. Apoc. 1:4-5.
35. Matt. 5:17.
36. Matt. 5:18.
37. Matt. 5:19.
38. Ibid.
39. Matt. 5:20.
40. Matt. 8:4.
41. Matt. 23:2-3.
42. Matt. 7:12.
43. Cf. I Tim. 4:4.
44. Matt. 22:35-40.
45. Rom. 3:31.
700 Notes to Number 26

46. Rom. 7:12.

47. Rom. 7:14.
48. Jas. 2:10.
49. Gen. 17:4,9-11,13-14.
50. Ezech. 44:9.
51. John 7:23.
52. The text reads: Ergo secundum animam vel secundum corpus; secun¬
dum corpus; non ergo secundum animam. Ergo mundabat animam. We
amend the punctuation of the second phrase to secundum corpus non; ergo
secundum animam. Note the parallel passage on the same page (p. 121):
[non] in carne enim .. . ergo in anima.
53. Rom. 2:25.
54. Gal. 2:7.
55. Rom. 15:8. Douay: “made unto the fathers,”
56. Gen. 2:3.
57. Identified by the editors as Peter Comestor.
58. Exod. 20:8,10.
59. Exod. 35:3.
60. Exod. 31:15-17.
61. Deut. 5:13-14.
62. Jer. 17:21-22.
63. Gen. 9:3-4.
64. Lev. 17:14.
65. Acts 15:28.
66. Lev. 5:1.
67. The reference is to one of the medieval commentators who “glossed”
the texts. See n. 12, above.
68. Lev. 13:18.
69. Exod. 30:13,15.
70. Lev. 10:1-2.
71. Lev. 19:35-36.
72. Deut. 4:2.
73. Deut. 12:32.
74. Isa. 29:13, quoted approximately as in the Septuagint, from which
it passed into Mark 7:7 and Matt. 15:9.
75. Isa. 40:9.
76. Osee 5:10. The other version referred to is the Septuagint.
77. Jonas 2:9.
78. Ps. 103 (A.V. 104): 12.
79. These words are taken from Peter Lombard’s commentary on Ps.
103:13 {Migne, PL, CXCI, 933-34). An English translation of Augustine’s
Expositions on the Book of Psalms (ed. and condensed from the Oxford
translation by A. C. Coxe) may be found in A Select Library of the Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Philip Schaff, Vol. VIII. The passage here
referred to is on p. 513.
Notes to Number 27 701
80. Cf, Ps. 103 (A.V. 104): 10.
81. Ps. 103 (A.V. 104): 12.
82. Prov. 30:5-6.
83. Matt. 5:17.
84. Rom. 15:18-19.
85. Gal. 1:9.
86. Apoc. 22:18. Among the additions to the confession of Bonacursus
(No. 25) was a statement on the Passagians (Migne, PL, CCIV, 784) which
may be compared with the foregoing: “Therefore, observe, you who know
it not, how wicked is the faith and teaching of such persons. First, they say
that the law of Moses must be observed to the letter and that the Sabbath,
circumcision, and other observances of the Law should still be in force.
They also say that Christ, the Son of God, is not equal to the Father, and
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three persons, are not
one God and one substance. Furthermore, to augment their error, they
judge and condemn all the doctors of the Church and the whole Roman
Church, all in all. But since they seek to defend this error of theirs by the
testimony of the New Testament and of the prophets, we shall, aided by
the grace of Christ, kill it with their own sword, as David did Goliath.”
What then follows is a list of scriptural texts which might be used in ref¬
utation of these errors.

27. AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOSPITALITY

OF HERETICS BY YVES OF NARBONNE

1. Robert of Curson (the place name is variously spelled in the sources)

was of English birth, studied at Paris, and was canon at Noyon and Paris
before he became cardinal-priest of San Stefano in Monte Celio in 1212.
As papal legate in France from 1213, he was especially occupied with
preaching the crusade to deliver Jerusalem, but shifted his attention to the
Albigensian Crusade and heresy about the end of that year. He was in
southern France with the crusading forces, but left before January, 1215,
in which year he was instrumental in providing regulations for the Univer¬
sity of Paris. In 1218, he was sent to accompany the crusaders who attacked
Damietta, where he died sometime after August of that year. See DNB, V,
344; also Marcel and Christine Dickson, “Le Cardinal Robert de Courgon,”
AHDLMA, IX (1934), 53-142.
2. See, for example, Kappeli, “Une Somme contre les h6retiques,” AFP,
XVII (1947), 307-8, 310; Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, I,” AFP9 XIX
(1949), 288, 290; and Borst, pp. 105, n. 28; 249, n. 6.
3. The sect name “Patarines” as equivalent to “Cathars” is first encoun¬
tered in the sources in 1179 in canon 27 of the Third Lateran Council
(Mansi, Concilia, XXII, 209). It is reminiscent of the reforming Pataria of
eleventh-century Milan (see The Introduction, p. 23, above). By mid¬
thirteenth century, the terms Cathari and Patarini had become common and
702 Notes to Number 27

interchangeable in Italy. The question of how and why this happened has
produced a great deal of learned discussion which also draws in the problem
of the origin of the eleventh-century word Pataria. St. Augustine had
mentioned heretics known to him as Paterniani {see No. 24, n. 14), but they
do not seem to enter the question here. Runciman (jMedieval Manichee,
p. 103) thinks Patarini (or Paterini) might come from patera, a Latin word
designating a utensil used in religious services. Guiraud (Histoire de VInqui¬
sition, I, 142) suggests that it might derive from Pater [Father] in the Lord’s
Prayer, or be a corruption of Cathari through CatherinL Duvernoy (“Un
Traite cathare,” Cahiers d*etudes cathares, 2d ser., XIII [1962], 24, n. 3), on
the other hand, thinks that Patari gave rise to Cathari. Morghen (“Movi-
menti religiosi popolari,” in Relazione del X Congresso, III, 335) argues
that Patarini became a general term meaning “heretics” and thus was applied
to the Cathars, although the Patarine and dualistic heresies were quite
different (ibid., p. 347). Werner (“naxaprjvoi-Patarini,” in Von Mittelalter
zur Neuzeit, 404-19, esp. 404-6) believes the word must be traced to Greek
origins because the agitation of the Pataria gave occasion and impetus to the
spread of Bogomil heresy in the eleventh century. Dondaine has recently
suggested (“Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX [1959], 276) that the word
came from naiepitaa designating a staff in the form of a T which was
the mark of pastoral dignity carried by Basilian monks and by “Good Chris¬
tians” of Bosnia and was also the cross of the patriarch of Constantinople.
One medieval derivation of Patarini from pati [suffer] will be found in No.
42, part B.
4. There are many reports of couriers moving between heretical groups
in Languedoc and Italy; see Guiraud, Histoire de VInquisition, Vol. II,
chap. IX.
5. Rabiolas: “Raisins” (uvae crispae) is suggested by Du Cange, but J. H.
Baxter and C. Johnson, Medieval Latin Word-list from British and Irish
Sources (London, 1934), translate it as “rissoles.”
6. See No. 23, n. 59.
7. Wiener Neustadt, twenty-eight miles south of Vienna, a town founded
in the twelfth century at the junction of trade routes which converge on
Vienna from the south. The route Yves followed from Italy is approximately
that of the present rail line from Gemona to Vienna.
8. Beguini: The name is of uncertain origin. Early in the thirteenth cen¬
tury it began to be applied, probably as a corruption of Albigenses, to com¬
munities of religious women who put themselves under the direction of the
Cistercian order with the desire to pursue lives of penitence and poverty.
Thereafter it designated various religious groups of unconventional character,
both orthodox and heretical. Beguins and Beghards in northern Europe
were, by and large, orthodox, although they displayed tendencies toward
mysticism and were perhaps influenced to some degree by Cathars. Beguins
of southern France in the fourteenth century shared the intensely held con¬
victions of the Spiritual Franciscans and were prosecuted as heretics (see
Notes to Number 28 703

No. 55, IV). On the name see Fr6degand Callaey, “Lambert 1 i Beges et les
Beguines,” RHE, XXIII (1927), 254-59; McDonnell, Beguines and Beghards,
pp. 430-38; Borst, p. 249, n. 6. For a convenient summary of the whole
religious movement of which the Beguins were a part, see Grundmann,
Ketzergeschichte, pp. 47-58. Hostility between Beguins and Albigenses in
the early fourteenth century is revealed by a witness before the Inquisition
in 1308 or 1309 who told of the murder of quendam beguinum. The Beguin
was kidnaped and killed, the witness said, because “the said Beguin betrayed
Christians, that is, heretics, and ambushed them in order to take them
captive and turn them over to inquisitors” (Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 18-19).

28. A DEBATE BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND HERETICS

1. On the date, see Claude Devic and Joseph Vaissete, Histoire generate
de Languedoc, ed. by Auguste Molinier et al., VII, 1-5.
2. Canon 4 (Mansi, Concilia, XXII, 1177-78).
3. See, for example, No, 29 and No. 34.
4. Not long afterward, Cathars of France and Italy are reported to have
met in council near Toulouse to discuss various affairs, see No. 23, n. 12.
5. It was translated in part in Samuel R. Maitland, Facts and Documents
Illustrative of the History, Doctrine and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and
Waldenses, pp. 140-45. There is also an abridged version under the year 1176
in the chronicle of Roger of Hoveden (as cited in the introduction to
No. 29), Vol. II, pp. 105-17.
6. Boni homines: The Cathars thus referred to those who had received
the consolamentum, never using the term “Perfect,” which, however, be¬
came common usage among their Catholic contemporaries and has been
perpetuated by historians. This is the earliest known appearance of the term
“Good Men.” Grundmann (Religiose Bewegungen, p. 22, n. 17) and Borst
(p. 242, n. 11) cite numerous other occurrences in the sources. “Good men”
was also a collective term applied to magistrates, officials, and distinguished
attendants in legal hearings during the Middle Ages, as the use in the next
sentence of our text illustrates.
7. The town and castle were held from the bishop of Albi by a “consor¬
tium” of nobles, related to each other (Lacger, “LAlbigeois pendant la
crise de l’albig&sme,” RHE, XXIX [1933], 281).
8. Neither the text which was the basis for the editions in Bouquet,
Recueil, and Mansi, Concilia, nor that given by Roger of Hoveden accurately
preserved the names of the ecclesiastics which follow, but the editor of our
text, Dom Brial, has in many cases supplied them in his notes; these are in
accord with the names given in the Histoire de Languedoc (Vol. IV, passim;
VI, 3; VII, 2-4) by the authors and editors. We have corrected our text by
reference to these studies.
9. I Cor. 7:9 (?).
10. Jas. 5:16.
704 Notes to Number 28

11. Matt. 5:34-37; Jas. 5:12.

12. I Tim. 3:2-7; Tit. 1:7-9.
13. Of him nothing further is known.
14. Matt. 7:15.
15. Alexander III (1159-1181).
16. Louis VII (1137-1180).
17. Raymond V (1148-1194).
18. Raymond Trencavel (1150-1167), who was viscount of Albi, Beziers*
Carcassonne, and Raz&s.
19. Cf. Juvenal Sat. n.79-81.
20. Cf. Jas. 5:12; Matt. 5:34-37.

29. ACTION AGAINST HERESY IN TOULOUSE

1. On the situation in Toulouse, one example of the views of a horrified

contemporary may suffice. Henry, abbot of Olairvaux, who played an im¬
portant part in the events described in this translation, wrote of Toulouse,
which he called the mother of heresy and the source of error: “Verily, we
had not been told the third part of all the evil abominations which that
noble city nourished in the bosom of its unbelief. The place of abomination
of desolation (Matt. 24:15) was fixed therein and the counterpart of the
reptiles of the prophets (cf. Jer. 8:17; Eccles. 10:11) had secured a dwelling
among its hiding places. There the heretics ruled the people and reigned
among the clergy, so that like people, like priest (Osee 4:9), and the life of
the pastor was itself shaped for the ruin of the flock. Heretics spoke and
all applauded. A Catholic spoke and they said, ‘What is this?’ making it
seem wondrous and miraculous if anyone was found among them who
would even dare to whisper about the word of faith. So much had the
pestilence prevailed upon the land that they had not only created priests
and pontiffs for themselves but had evangelists who, spoiling and canceling
out the true Gospel, forged a new gospel for them and from their hearts
wickedly preached a fresh teaching to the deluded people.... Upon our
arrival there, so great was the license of the heretics everywhere that as we
pursued our proper course through the streets and squares they railed at us,
pointed their fingers at us, shouted at us that we were imposters, hypocrites,
heretics (Roger of Hoveden Chronica, II, 160-61). Complaints hardly less
severe had been voiced in a letter of 1173 from the archbishop of Narbonne
(Bouquet, RecueiU XVI, 159-60).
2. Gervase of Canterbury Chronica, ed. by William Stubbs, in The Histori¬
cal Works of Gervase of Canterbury, I, 270-71.
3. The letters are printed in Migne, PL, CCIV, 235-42, CXCIX, 1120-
24, as well as in the edition of Roger of Hoveden and in the chronicle

4. Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis, ed. by William

200. The chronicle is no longer assigned to Benedict’s authorship
Notes to Number 29 705

5. The author is referring to his report of the confrontation at Lombers,

<No. 28), which he dates 1176. On the name “Arians,” see No. 6, n. 9.
6. Claudian xv.384. The report in the Gesta regis Henriciy which Roger
of Hoveden is here paraphrasing, strikes a more martial note, saying (pp.
198-99) that the kings decided to send “wise and bellicose” men to convert
the heretics or to drive them away.
7. Peter of Pavia, subsequently cardinal-bishop of Tusculum and arch¬
bishop of Bourges (1180), although he never occupied the see of Bourges.
Peter was twice papal legate to France (1174-1178 and 1180-1182); see
Hippolyte Delehaye, “Pierre de Pavie,” RQH, XLIX (1891), 5-61.
8. Guarin (1174-1180) and Pons of Arsac (1162-1181), respectively. The
latter was deposed in 1181 by Henry of Marcy, acting as papal legate.
9. Reginald Fitz-Jocelin (1174-1191) and John of the Fair Hands (1162-
1179). The latter, when he became archbishop of Lyons, was to have diffi¬
culties with Waldes of Lyons and his followers (see No. 33).
10. Henry of Marcy entered Glairvaux about 1156, became abbot of
Hautecombe in 1160, and of Glairvaux in 1176. In 1179 he became
cardinal-bishop of Albano; he died in 1188. He, too, was to have further
experience with heretics, as the leader of a brief crusade (see n. 28, below)
and when he received Waldes’s profession of faith in Lyons (see No. 32);
see Congar, “Henri de Marcy,” Studia Anselmiana, XLIII; Analecta Monas-
tica, V (1958), 1-38
11. Acts 8:15-16.
12. Raymond II (1143-1190).
13. This was Peter Mauran, one of the ten wealthiest men in the city,
according to Henry of Marcy (as quoted in Gesta regis Henrici, p. 215). The
Mauran family was important in the bourg, for it was rising in wealth and
was much involved in the social disturbances consequent upon the shifting
fortunes of the landlord and business classes of Toulouse. The Mauran clan
also owned considerable real property outside the town. See Mundy, Liberty
and Political Power: on the social situation at the time, pp. 59-66; on the
mission of 1178, pp. 60-62.
14. The abbot of Clairvaux in his letter (Roger of Hoveden Chronica,
II, 165) calls Peter’s residence, in which Peter allegedly held heretical con¬
venticles, a castrum. Roger of Hoveden and the Gesta Henrici, which he
is here following, make mention of two castella and in a subsequent passage
“towers” (tunes,) which were to be destroyed. The house in the bourg was
fortified with a strong tower; the one outside the walls might have been
the “little fortress” at Valsegur (see Mundy, Liberty and Political Power,
p. 61). On the problem of the word castrum, see No. 5, n. 6.
15. The disclosure was no doubt the result of the legate’s demand that
.

the bishop and consuls of Toulouse in conjunction with certain clergy and
lay citizens furnish him with the names of notorious heretics (Roger of
Hoveden Chronica, II, 161 [letter of Henry of Clairvaux]).
16. Peter Mauran, probably relying on the influence of his family and
706 Notes to Number 29

friends, had ignored a first summons but was persuaded by the count to
appear. He denied any heresy, although informants had described him as
“the prince” of the sect and reported that he referred to himself as John the
Evangelist. After demurring at an oath to attest his innocence, he yielded
and then, at the moment of swearing, broke down and confessed that he had
denied the reality of the sacrifice in the Eucharist (ibid., pp. 162-64). His
recantation involves this error alone—information we owe to the kindness
of Professor John Mundy, who discovered the text of the confession in the
archives of St. Semin.
17. Either this Peter Mauran or his son and namesake was elected consul
in Toulouse in 1183-1184 (Mundy, Liberty and Political Power, p. 270, n. 8).
18. Raymond of Baimac may have been the second bishop of the Catharist
church of Val d’Aran (Borst, p. 234), but see the denial that there was such
a church, cited in No. 23, n. 12. Bernard Raymond is named as the bishop
of the Catharist church of Toulouse, elected at the council of Saint-Felix-de-
Caraman (Dondaine, “Les Actes du concile albigeois,” in Miscellanea
Giovanni Mercati, V, 326).
19. Cf. II Cor. 11:14.
20. The two men had taken refuge with Roger Trencavel II (1167-1194),
viscount of Beziers. Abbot Henry and the bishop of Bath had gone on a side
trip to persuade Roger to release the bishop of Albi, whom he was holding
prisoner. In that mission they were not successful, but they did encounter
the two heretics here named, who apparently accepted an opportunity to
defend themselves publicly (Roger of Hoveden Chronica, II, 165-66 [letter
of Henry of Clairvaux], and p. 156 [letter of Peter of Pavia]).
21. Matt. 5:34,37.
22. Ps. 109 (A.V. 110):4.
23. Gen. 22:16.
24. Cf. Heb. 6:16.
25. I Thess. 4:14 (A.V. 15).
26. Rom. 1:9.
27. Cf. Ps. 77 (A.V. 78):57.
28. This was not the last encounter of the chief actors in these events.
In 1181, Henry of Marcy, then cardinal and legate to France, led a crusade
(the first within Christian lands) against heretics and their protectors in the
lands of the viscount of Beziers. The fortress of Lavaur yielded to siege,
and among the prisoners were Raymond of Baimac and Bernard Raymond.
They were converted and became canons in churches in Toulouse (see
Maisonneuve, p. 135; Lea, History of the Inquisition, I, 124; and Congar,
“Henri de Marcy” [as cited in n. 10], pp. 36-38).

30. THE ORIGINS OF THE WALDENSIAN HERESY

1. These names are used interchangeably in the sources of the thirteenth

century; but see Walter Mohr, “Waldes und das friihe Waldensertum,” Zeit-
Notes to Number 30 707
schrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, IX (1957), 337-63, esp. 347-
54, for the theory that the different names used in the earliest documents
are significant evidence of a split among Waldes’s followers (cf. No. 33,
n. 7).
2. His name appears in documents of the late twelfth century and the
thirteenth as Valdesius or some variant thereof (Wandesius, Valdexius,
Gualdesius, etc.). There seems no good reason not to use the form “Waldes”
in English. Although “Peter Waldo” has become the usual way of referring
to him in English, it is not justified from contemporary sources, for the
name Peter does not appear in documents until the second half of the
fourteenth century (Gonnet, “Waldensia,” RHPR, XXXIII [1953], 243-48).
Gonnet suggests that Waldensian apologists\ were then seeking to trace the
origins of their faith back to the earliest days of Christianity, for which
“Peter” would have important connotations.
3. This interpretation has been frequently advanced in recent years; see
Davison, Forerunners of St. Francis, chap. VII; Pouzet, “Les Origines lyon-
naises,” Revue d'histoire de Veglise de France, XXII (1936), 6 and n. 3;
Dondaine, “Aux Origines du Vald6isme,” AFP, XVI (1946), 230; Gonnet,
“Waldensia”, RHPR, XXXIII (1953), 220-22; and Marthaler, “Forerunners
of the Franciscans,” Franciscan Studies, new ser., XVIII (1958), 133-42.
4. See also n. 145 to the Introduction. One may consult the studies of
the sources and the comprehensive bibliographies in the works of Giovanni
Gonnet, especially II Valdismo medioevale, and “II movimento valdese in
Europa secondo le piu recenti ricerche (sec. XII-XVI),” Bollettino della
Societd di studi Valdesi, C (1956), 21-30; and the collection of sources in
his Enchiridion fontium Valdensium. See also Gottfried Koch, “Neue Quel-
len und Forschungen fiber die Anfange der Waldenser,” Forschungen und
Fortschritten, XXXII (1958), 141-49; and Manselli, Studi sulle eresie, chap.
IV.
5. Gallie: the term our author uses for this region of France. Actually,
the city of Lyons, along with the kingdom of Arles, had in 1032 been ceded
to the Holy Roman Empire by the will of Rudolph III and was still tech¬
nically under imperial authority.
6. St. Alexis was a fourth-century ascetic whose story was the subject of
a poem in French, written about 1040. Son of a wealthy member of the
equestrian order in Rome, Alexis married but immediately left home and
wife for a mendicant life as a Christian in Syria. After many years he
returned to Rome and, unrecognized, begged shelter in his old home. Only
on his deathbed was his true identity revealed. The poem seems to have
enjoyed great popularity in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and was fre¬
quently recited in castle and town. See Joseph Bddier and Paul Hazard,
Litterature frangaise, new ed. by Pierre Martino, I, 8-9. There is an English
translation in The Oldest Monuments of the French Language (Oxford and
London, 1912), pp. 28-56, and a prose version of the poem in Davison,
Forerunners of St. Francis, pp. 239-43.
708 Notes to Number 30
7. Matt. 19:21.
8. In 1173 from May 27 to August 1.
9. August 15.
10. Matt. 6:24.
11. Guichard (1165-1180/81). On the date of his death, see No. 32, n. 1.
12. Cf. Matt. 10:9; 6:34.

31. THE WALDENSES AT THE THIRD

LATERAN COUNCIL

1. On this council see the first part of the Introduction, n. 140.

2. Mohr (“Waldes,” Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, IX
11957], 345) argues that this statement cannot be taken literally, since Walter
Map, who was present at the council, did not record the participation of
Waldes.
3. Probably the archbishop of Lyons had already sought to restrain
Waldes and his friends from preaching in public and thus prompted their
appeal to the pope (Pouzet, “Les Origines lyonnaises,” Revue d’histoire de
Viglise de France, XXII [1936], 14). Moneta of Cremona, writing sixty years
later (Adversus Catharos et Valdenses, pp. 402-3), says that the pope insisted
that their preaching conform to the teaching of four Church Fathers:
Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome. It was the works of these fathers
which the Waldenses of the early fourteenth century were said to cherish
(see No. 55, II, 1), although some sources state that they used them only
selectively; see Dondaine, “Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 274.
4. We here follow James, who in his translation (p. 65) prefers in quo
(which was the reading of the manuscript) to the cifo of his printed text.
5. Cf. Matt. 7:6.
6. Cf. Ps. 132 (A.V. 133):2.
7. Cf. Prov. 5:16.
8. Cf. Ps. 10:3 (A.V. 11:2).
9. Cf. Ps. 62:12 (A.V. 63:11).
10. Qui respondere parabam. Cf. Vergil Eclogues vii.5: et respondere
parati.
11. This echoes a very old joke that may be traced back at least to re¬
publican Rome (see Thesaurus linguae latinae, III, 448, s.v. “carduus”).
12. That is, by their answer the Waldenses seemed to put the Virgin on
an equality with the Trinity and aroused derision at their ignorance of so
fundamental a point of theology.
13. Ovid Met. ii. 192.
14. Cf. Acts 2:44.
Notes to Number 32 109
32. A PROFESSION OF FAITH BY WALDES OF LYONS

1. The date is fixed by that of Guichard’s death: probably July, 1180,

according to Jean Leclercq (“Le T6moignage de Geoffroy d’Auxerre sur la
vie Cistercienne,” Studio, Anselmiana, XXXI; Analecta monastica, II [1953],
195, n. 4); but more correctly on or before September 27, 1181, according
to Ph. Pouzet (“La Vie de Guichard, abb6 de Pontigny [1136-1165] et arche-
veque de Lyon [1165-1181],” Bulletin de la Societe litteraire, historique et
archeologique de Lyon, X [1929], 117-50). Christine Thouzdlier (“La Pro¬
fession trinitaire,” RTAM, XXVII [1960], 267) prefers the date 1180.
2. Leclercq, “Le T6moignage de Geoffroy d’Auxerre’* (as cited in n. 1),
p. 195. Geoffrey made this statement in a sermon prepared some years
later, in which he calls Waldes Wandesius.
3. The profession stands at the head of one of the two manuscript copies
of a tract against the Cathars, the Liber antiheresis, written by Durand of
Huesca (see item xii in the list of polemics in the Appendix; and No. 36 for
Durand’s career).
4. In the Statuta ecclesiae antique, attributed to Caesarius of Arles (502-
542), in Migne, PL, LVI, 879-80; another version ascribed to a supposed
council of Carthage in a.d. 398 passed into the pseudo-Isidorian Collectio
canonum (Migne, PL, LXXXIV, 199-200). See also Dondaine, “Aux Ori-
gines du Vald6isme,” AFP, XVI (1946), 202. See also n. 11, below.
5. As a professio fidei it also appears in an Ordo Romanus antiquus
(tenth century?) published in Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum, XIII,
708. It is also similar to one found in the Liber diurnus, a collection of
documents and formulas useful to papal notaries (see the Liber diurnus
Romanorum pontificum, ed by E. Roziere, No. 73).
6. Julien Havet, Lettres de Gerbert (983-997), Letter 180, pp. 161 L
There is an English translation in The Letters of Gerbert with His Papal
Privileges as Sylvester 11, trans. by Harriet Pratt Lattin, Letter 192, pp. 224-25.
7. Ilarino da Milano, “Le eresie popolari,” in Studi Gregoriani, II, 44-46;
see also Borst, p. 73, n. 3.
8. Paul Ewald, “Vita Gauzlini abbatis Floriacensis von Andreas von
Fleury (ca. 1041),” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur dltere deutsche Ge-
schichtskunde, III (1878), 351-83. The episode at Orleans is recounted in
chap. XLIV, the profession is given in chap. XLV. There is another com¬
parable tradition of a profession of faith, which apparently derives from
the form used in the Roman rite of ordination of bishops. The Roman
version is printed in L. A. Muratori, Liturgia Romana vetus, II, 436-38.
Pope Leo IX (1048-1054) used this as a statement of faith in a letter (April
13, 1053) to Peter, bishop of Antioch (Migne, PL, CXLIII, 769-73; English
translation in Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. by Deferrari,
pp. 140-42). The differences—comparing the profession of Gerbert with
that of Leo IX—are Leo’s omission of the statements denying opposition to
marriage or to eating meat, and denying that the devil was evil by nature.
 Notes to Number 32

This form of the profession of faith was to be useful in later years. It was
sent to the Eastern emperor Michael Palaeologus in 1267 and was returned
by him to Gregory X and the Council of Lyons in 1274 (Mansi, Concilia,
XXIV, 70; English translation in Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma,
pp. 183-85). See also Dondaine, “Aux Origines du Valdeisme,” AFP, XVI
(1946), 201.
9. Waldes’s profession was developed into a basic formula for reconcilia¬
tion of heretics to which Innocent III perhaps refers when he mentions an
oath for converts “in the form of the Church which is customarily offered
by such persons5* (letter to the bishop of Verona, December 6, 1199 [Regesta
II.228, in Migne, PL, CCXIV, 789]). For its use by some converts from the
Waldenses in 1208 and 1210, see No. 36. Together with the profession in
the Roman tradition, mentioned in the preceding note, it influenced the
phrasing of the first canon of the Fourth Lateran Council (Mansi, Concilia,
XXII, 982; English translation in Petry, History of Christianity, pp. 322-23),
which became the decretal Firmiter credimus of Gregory IX (Corpus iuris
canonici, Decretales Gregorii IX. Lib. i. Tit. 1. cap. 1 [Friedberg, II, 5-6]).
With a few further amendments it appears under the title Qualiter debeant
heresim abiurare et fidem catholicam confiteri, si ab heresi convertuntur,
in the commentary of Benedict of Alignan on that decretal in the mid¬
thirteenth century (see item xxvi in the list of polemics in the Appendix).
The oath is one of the pieces printed by Douais, as noted there.
10. Jas. 2:17.
11. Since the preceding introduction and these notes were written, Chris¬
tine Thouzellier has published a detailed analysis of Waldes’s profession of
faith in her Catharisme et Valdeisme, pp. 27-36. There the text of the pro¬
fession is collated with the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua (which is assigned to
the fifth century), as it is published in the edition of Ch. Munier (Paris,
1960). Mile Thouzellier ascribes the preparation of the profession on that
ancient base to the cardinal-legate (or perhaps to the Roman chancery), who
added the new elements necessitated by experiences in Languedoc. To
Waldes are attributed the phrases specifying the creeds, affirming his
orthodoxy in respect of the sacraments and marriage, and stating his respect
for the hierarchy. It is supposed that in return for his disavowal of heresy,
the appended statement of his apostolic program was accepted.

33. STEPHEN OF BOURBON ON THE EARLY

WALDENSES

1. Matt. 5:3. The term “Poor in Spirit” is one that the Waldenses applied
to themselves; see No. 46, § 1.
2. Cant. 3:2.
3. John was archbishop from 1181 to 1193. Stephen of Bourbon has
confused the earlier ban on preaching by Archbishop Guichard with the
Notes to Number 34 111

expulsion of Waldes and his group by Archbishop John after 1181.

4. Acts 5:29.
5. Mark 16:15.
6. The reference to a condemnation in Rome at a council held “before
the Lateran Council” (by which Stephen means that of 1215) is puzzling.
The Waldenses were not condemned at the Third Lateran Council of 1179.
Possibly Stephen confused it with the Council of Verona, 1184, at which
they were excommunicated. A. W. Dieckhoff (Die Waldenser im Mittelaltert
pp. 182, 343 f.) suggested that the Waldenses were condemned in a council
under Innocent III; his argument is not convincing.
7. A thesis is advanced by Walter Mohr (“Waldes,” Zeiltschrift fur
Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, IX [1957], pp. 337-63) that Waldes died
before 1184 and that he had remained true to his vow, but that certain of
his companions had refused to follow him in submission to the Church or
to admit, as Waldes had done, that anyone who refused to practice holy
poverty might be saved. Mohr holds that it was this recalcitrant faction that
was subject to condemnation. See also No. 36, n. 32. Mohr does not seem
to have noted the comment by (Geoffrey of Auxerre (Leclercq, “Le T6moig-
nage de Geoffroy d’Auxerre,” Studia Anselmiana, XXXI; Analecta monas-
tica, II [1953], 195) that after his appearance before the cardinal and council
at Lyons Waldes returned to his former ways and continued to gather and
commission disciples to preach (sed reversus ad vomitum colligere et disse-
minare discipulos non desistit). Such a statement is not easily explained away.
8. Baculum penitenciarii et ferramenta.

34. A DEBATE BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND

WALDENSES

1. Probably not long before the death of the bishop in 1191. Libert
Verrees, “Le Traite de l’abbe Bernard de Fontcaude contre les Vaudois et
les Ariens,” Analecta Praemonstratensia, XXXI (1955), 30, suggests a date
somewhat before 1191.
2. In the manuscripts and in the earlier edition of Jacob Gretser, in
Trias scriptorum adversus Waldensiam sectam (Ingolstadt, 1614), pp. 3-86,
the title adds, “and against the Arians.”
3. Lucius III (1181-1185).
4. Daventria: Of him nothing more is known.
5. I Pet. 5:4.
6. Acts 5:29.
7. Although rejection of good works on behalf of the deceased and denial
of purgatory is later reported of the Waldenses (see No. 52 and No. 54,
§ 12), this chapter and the following one probably reflect the survival of
the heretic Henry’s teaching (see No. 13) or the doctrine of the Cathars.
Verrees (“Le Trait6 de l’abb6 Bernard,” Analecta Praemonstratensia, XXXI
712 Notes to Number 34
11955], 29-30) doubts that the last four chapters are concerned with the
Waldenses, in part because of a change in the style, which no longer seems
to reflect a debate.
8. This is a Catharist tenet: see No. 25, n. 26.
9. Possibly this reflects the views of Cathars reported not long after
Bernard wrote (see No. 37) which spoke erf a “new earth” they would possess
after death, before the Last Judgment. See also the later ideas of the Italian,
Desiderius (No. 54, § 3).
10. Acts 7:48.
11. This attitude was shared by various sects; but that Bernard had
Cathars particularly in mind is indicated by a sentence in the text of chapter
XII. “They blaspheme the name of God when they say that He did not
create and does not rule the world” (col. 836).

35. ALAN OF LILLE:

A SCHOLARS ATTACK ON HERETICS

1. See the works cited in the introductions to Nos. 28 and 37.

2. They have been translated into English: The Complaint of Nature by
Alain de Lille, trans. by Douglas M. Moffat (New York, 1908); and The
Anticlaudian of Alain de Lille: Prologue, Argument and Nine Books, trans.
by William H. Comog (Philadelphia, 1935).
3. Twenty-nine manuscripts are enumerated by Guy Raynaud de Lage,
Alain de Lille, poite du XUe siecle, p. 42. Three others are Barcelona,
Archivo General de la Corona de Aragon, Ripoll, MS 204, fols. 13r-52v;
Breslau, Staats und Universitats Bibliothek, MS I, F. 35; Munich, Bayerische
Stadtbibliothek, MS 544, fols. 206-23. This is a larger number of manuscripts
than has been discovered for any polemic except that of Rainerius Saccopi
(No. 51). Alan’s work was also subject to abridgment or distention. The
Munich MS 544, to judge from its partial printing in Dollinger, Beitrage,
II, 279-85, gives portions of Book I out of their proper order. Another less
extensive abridgment is found in Florence, Laurentian Library, Bibliotheca
Aedilium, MS 37, fols. 70r-75v, published but not identified by Frederick
C. Conybeare (“A Hitherto Unpublished Treatise against the Italian Mani-
chaeans,” American Journal of Theology, III [1899] 704-28). It distorts
Alan’s work by bringing chapters on the Cathars and the Waldenses together
without differentiating between the sects. Such examples of careless copying
are studied in Walter L. Wakefield, “Notes on Some Antiheretical Writings
of the Thirteenth Century,” Franciscan Studies, XXVII (1967), 285-321.
4. Alan uses only the term “heretics” throughout his first book, except
in one place (chap. LXHI, Migne, PL, CCX, 366), where he writes: “They
condemn marriages which restrain the flow of excesses whence, it is re¬
ported, they behave in the filthiest of ways in their assemblies. These persons
are called Cathars, meaning those who are dissolved through vice, from
Notes to Number 35 713
catha, that is, a purifying flow. Or [they are called] Cathars, with the
meaning ‘chaste/ because they make themselves out to be chaste or right¬
eous; or Cathars, from ‘cat/ because, it is said, they kiss the hinder parts
of a cat, in whose likeness, so they say, Lucifer appears to them/’
5. De Lage, A lain de Lille, p. 42.
6. Alan left Montpellier for Paris in 1194 (ibid.). The treatise is dedicated
to Count William VIII of Montpellier (1172-1202), with praise for his action
in resisting heresy; if it was written at Montpellier, it was probably com¬
posed between 1190 and 1194. However, it is from 1195 on that we have
other evidence of antiheretical activity in that city. In that year a council
ordered enforcement of the decree of the Third Lateran Council against
heretics and mercenaries (Mansi, Concilia, XXII, 667-72). In 1199 Innocent
III took Count William under apostolic protection and announced to him
the appointment of a legate to assist with the work against heresy, as the
count had requested (Regesta h.298,299, in Migne, PL, 860-61). See also
the reference to the Waldenses driven from Montpellier in No. 43, part B.
7. Of first importance for the study of Alan’s life and work is the earlier
investigation by M. B. Haur6au, “Memoire sur la vie et quelques oeuvres
d’Alain de Lille,” Memoires de VA cademie des inscriptions et belles-lettres
de Vlnstitut national de France, Vol. XXXII, pt. 1 (1886), 1-27; see also
Clemens Baumker, ‘‘Handschriftliches zu den Werken des Alanus,” Philoso-
phisches Jahrbuch der Gorres-gesellschaft, VI (1893), 163-75, 417-29. The
De fide catholica is studied in Cesare Vasoli, “II ‘Contra haereticos’ di Alano
di Lilia,” BISIAM, LXXV (1963), 123-72; and in Thouzellier, Catharisme
et valdeisme, pp. 83-106; its author is discussed in most histories of scholastic
philosophy and of the literature of the Middle Ages (references in Borst,
pp. 9, n. 17; 10, nn. 18, 19).
8. Matt. 7:18.
9. Gen. 1:2.
10. John 14:30.
11. Matt. 6:24.
12. John 8:44
13. Cf. Rom. 7:20.
14. Rom. 7:23.
15. Cf. Gal. 5:17.
16. Rationi: In the text which is paraphrased (Rom. 7:23), the conflict
is against mind (mens).
17. Matt. 15:24.
18. John 3:13.
19. Matt. 7:15.
20. Cf. the remarks of Walter Map (No. 31, part B).
21. There is a play on words in the Latin: discipuli, imo muscipuli
[mouse-catchers].
22. Cf. II Thess. 3:10.
23. John 1:6.
714 Notes to Number 35
24. Jer. 1:5.
25. Amos 1:1.
26. Mai. 3:1, as quoted in Matt. 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27.
27. Isa. 1:1-2.
28. Chap. 16.
29. II Par. [II Chron.] 26:16.
30. Rom. 10:15.
31. Chap. 11.
32. Rom. 1:5.
33. Manuals on the “art of preaching” often discussed preaching under
divisions such as these. Alan was the author of such a manual: Summa de
arte praedicatoria (Migne, PL, CCX, 109-98). A brief analysis of it will be
found in Harry Caplan, “Rhetorical Invention in Some Medieval Tractates
on Preaching,” Speculum, II (1927), 291-92.
34. I Cor. 14:34-35.
35. I Tim. 2:11-12.
36. II Tim. 3:1-7.
■

37. For comparison with the nearly contemporary work of Bernard of

Fontcaude (No. 34) we may note the other errors with which the Waldenses
are charged in Alan’s other chapters: Some say that they need obey no one
but God, yet others would also obey good prelates; some assert that the
power to bind and loose belongs only to persons who follow the apostolic
life. Believing merit worth more than ordination, they assume the power to
bestow blessings, to bind and to loose. They say there is no need to confess
to a priest if a layman is available; that absolution given by prelates has no
validity; that the prayers of mortal sinners are of no value to the dead; that
every lie is a mortal sin and no oath may be taken in any circumstances.
No man should be put to death. Preachers ought not to work with their own
hands for their livelihood but receive it from their auditors.

36. THE RECONCILIATION OF A GROUP OF

WALDENSES TO THE CHURCH

1. See pp. 36-37, above. About the missionary campaigns of 1204-1208

see Mandonnet, Saint Dominique, esp. the studies of Vicaire, I, 83-156
(the English translation by Larkin omits some of these); Marie-Humbert
Vicaire, Saint Dominique de Caleruega d’apres les documents du XIII€
siecle; and the same author’s Histoire de Saint Dominique (English trans¬
lation as Saint Dominic and His Times) esp. Vol. I, chaps. V-VII. For the
concept “preaching and example,” see Christine Thouzellier, “La Pauvrete,
arme contre l’Albigeisme en 1206,” RHR, CLI (1957), 79-92.
2. Among the significant products of research on heresy in recent years
has been the revelation of the polemical activity of Durand of Huesca and
his associates; see the Introduction, p. 61, and also the list of polemical
Notes to Number 36 715

tracts in the Appendix. A conference on the religious history of the Midi

of France, held at Fanjeaux, France, in July, 1966, was devoted to the
Waidenses of Languedoc. A brief report is given in RHE, LXI (1966), 1003;
the record of the session is printed in Cahiers de Fanjeaux, Vol. II (Toulouse,
1966). Contributors to the discussion called attention to Durand’s importance
in bringing back to the Church Waidenses in the vicinity of Narbonne; the
antipathy of the Waidenses for the Cathars; and the probability that Durand
should be known as Durand of Osca (from Osques in Rouergue, France)
rather than of Huesca (in Spain).
3. Cronica, ed. by J. Bessyier, in Troisiemes Melanges d'histoire du
moyen age, p. 127 (translation ours). William of Puylaurens’s narrative and
Peter of Vaux-de Cernay’s Historia albigensis are the chief sources for the
debates of 1207-1208. Passages from them describing the disputation at
Pamiers are reprinted in Gonnet, Enchiridion, I, 126-28.
4. Johann B. Pierron, Die katholischen Armen, pp. 53-67.
5. Regesta xii.17 (April 3, 1209), in Migne, PL, CCXVI, 29-30; Potthast
3694. Cf. Luigi Zanoni, “Valdesi a Milano nel secolo XIII,” Archivio storico
lombardo, 4th ser., XVII (1912), 5-22; and Pierron, Die katholischen Armen,
pp. 31-32.
6. See No. 45, parts B and C.
7. The connection between Durand’s potential converts and the Poor
Lombards has not, we believe, been previously noted. It is shown in the fol¬
lowing facts: After the Poor Lombards broke with the Poor of Lyons in 1205,
they quarreled among themselves at a gathering near Milan. Some who split
off at that time were called “those of the meadow’’ (illi de prato); see No. 45,
part C, § 26. In his letter of April 3, 1209 (cited in n. 5, above), instructing
the archbishop of Milan to investigate Durand’s request, Innocent wrote: “Al¬
most a hundred other persons have sought to be reconciled, with the proviso
that you see fit to grant them ... a certain meadow, which had once been
turned over to them by the commune of Milan, where a school was built
(quoddam pratum quod commune Mediolanense ipsis olim concesserat in quo
schola constructa) . . . Your predecessor of good memory caused it to be
destroyed at the time when they were under excommunication but it is
now rebuilt,’’ The identity of the disgruntled Poor Lombards, who were assoc¬
iated with a certain pratum, and the potential converts, also associated with a
certain pratum, which had been the site of heretical meetings, seems undeni¬
able. It may be added that Mile Thouzellier has come to the same conclusion
in her detailed study of the Poor Catholics; see Catharisme et Valdtisme,
p. 226.
8. In 1245 a witness before the Inquisition recalled having seen Bernard
Prim, “a Waldensian heretic,” disputing with a Cathar in the year 1208 or
thereabouts (Douais, “Les Heretiques du comte de Toulouse,” Bulletin
theologique, scientifique et litteraire de Vlnstitut catholique de Toulouse,
new ser., Ill [1892], 164). For another reference to Bernard, see also No. 45,
part C, § 26.
716 Notes to Number 36

9. Regesta xiii.94 (June 14, 1210), in Migne, PL, CCXVI, 289-93;

Potthast 4014. Their statement of faith and proposal for a society is also
printed in Gonnet, Enchiridion, I, 136-40. It belongs to the long tradition
of professions of faith, though it differs from the statements of Durand and
Waldes in various phrases. The proposed way of life also differs from that
of the Poor Catholics by more emphasis on community life and labor, less
on preaching and disputation. This rule was revised and reissued on July
23, 1212 (Regesta xv.137, in Migne, PL, CCVI, 648-50; Potthast 4567).
There is only one other reference to the Reconciled Poor in the letters of
Innocent III: August 1, 1212 (Regesta xv.146, in Migne, PL, CCXVI, 668;
Potthast 4569).
10. Regesta xm.78 (May 12, 1210), in Migne, PL, CCXVI, 274-75;
Potthast 3998. The passages to which we refer were actually placed in the
printed text of the letter of December 18, 1208, by the editor, with a note
indicating that he transposed them there from the later letter (Migne, PL*
CCXV, 1512-13). The profession of faith of May 12, 1210, appears in
English in Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, pp. 166-68.
11. Regesta xv.82 (May 26, 1212), in Migne, PL, CCXVI, 602-3;
Potthast 4504. See also Thouzellier, Catharisme et Valdeisme, pp. 255-59.
12. The pope wrote repeatedly to various prelates urging them to protect
the converts from molestation and in 1212 formally placed the society under
papal protection (Regesta xv.96 [May 29, 1212], in Migne, PL, CCXVI*
609; Potthast 4510).
13. Pierron, Die katholischen Armen, pp. 47-50; see also No. 45, part Cy
§26.
14. On Burchard and his work, see the Introduction to the edition of his
chronicle, written by Bernard von Simson, esp. pp. vii-xi, xxvii-xxx; and
Wilhelm Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, II,
448-50.
15. Under the same date, a copy of this letter was prepared for Duragd
and also a second one in which exemption from military service and from
the need to take oaths in secular affairs was granted to laymen who might
accept the supervision of the Poor Catholics (Regesta xi. 197,198, in Migne*
PL, CCXV, 1514; Potthast, 3572, 3573).
16. In later letters, full names are given. These initials refer to Bernard
of Beziers, John of Narbonne, and either Ermengaud or Ebrinus, ail of
whom are named in a letter of May 12, 1210 (see ri. 10, above). Ermengaud
and Ebrinus are not mentioned again; the others were still with Durand of
Huesca in 1212, along with William of St. Antonin and Durand of Naiac,
whose names had first appeared in 1210 and 1212, respectively. Raymond
of St. Paul appears only in the letter of May 12, 1210.
17. The italicized words here and in subsequent places are those which
are not found exactly or in substance in the 1180 or 1181 profession of faith
of Waldes.
18. Cf. Jas. 2:17.
Notes to Number 37 111
19. The passage from "We have renounced the world” to this point is
taken from the profession of Waldes.
20. Preachers among the Waldenses had adopted sandals with a special
design as a mark of their vocation. See No. 38, n. 33.
21. Lev., chaps. 13-14.
22. We omit here and in later passages the scriptural verses cited by the
pope to bolster his admonitions.
23. Gal. 5:18.
24. II Cor. 3:17.
25. Luke 17:21.
26. Rom. 14:15.
27. Cant. 2:15.
28. Matt. 11:29.
29. On the same date letters were written to the archbishops of Tarragona
and Narbonne, urging them to lenient treatment and careful guidance of
the Poor Catholics (Regesta xii.67,68, in Migne, PL, CCXVI, 73-74; Potthast
3767, 3768).
30. Cf. Ps. 102 (A.V. 103):5.
31. See No. 22.
32. This passage has given rise to some problems of interpretation. Its
references to Pauperes minores have usually been taken to mean the Fran¬
ciscan order, which was given verbal approval by Innocent III in 1209 but
formal confirmation and approval of its rule only in 1223 by Honorius III.
(The Dominican order, which Burchard discusses in the next paragraph, did
not receive formal confirmation and approval by Honorius III until 1216.)
Burchard’s reference to the Poor of Lyons and their leader has also been
thought to designate the Reconciled Poor under Bernard Prim. However,
Walter Mohr (“Waldes,” Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte,
IX [1957], 348-54) sees it differently. Pursuing his thesis that the recon¬
ciliation of Waldes in 1180/81 and his death soon afterward had split his
followers, Mohr argues that Burchard here is recalling the events of his first
trip to Rome about 1198, that the group called the Poor of Lyons here
were unreconciled followers of Waldes, and that the Pauperes minores of
this narrative were those who had followed Waldes in his return to the
Church and were recognized as orthodox. We cannot accept Mohr’s inter¬
pretation.
33. Cf. Deut. 23:25.
34. Cant. 4:4.
35. Cf. Ezech. 13:5.

37. AN EXPOSURE OF THE ALBIGENSIAN AND

WALDENSIAN HERESIES

1. See item xiv in the list of polemics in the Appendix.

718 Notes to Number 37

2. Dondaine, “Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 260-61.

3. Jer. 5:19.
4. Cf. I John 5:19.
5. Matt. 7:18.
6. Cf. Rom. 7:5-6 and 4:15.
7. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19.
8. Matt. 5:28.
9. Mark 16:16.
10. I Cor. 15:50.
11. Serenam: This is the name given in Provencal to a bee-eating bird
(merops apiaster); see Du Cange, s.v. “serena.” The significance of these
four created forms (if serena, indeed, is here properly translated) is not
clear.
12. We have not encountered elsewhere this myth of creation in which
the evil god is the first to act.
13. Cf. the names given to the evil one in No. 51, §20, and No. 59,
II, § 11.
14. Testimonium: We amend it to testamentum in accordance with the
phrase in the second sentence following.
15. Reading in terra sua for in ira sua of the text.
16. Cf. Apoc. 12:9,4.
17. Matt. 15:24.
18. Luke 19:10.
19. Luke 9:56.
20. Deut. 33:2.
21. Ezech. 35:2-5, with omissions.
22. With the following tenets of absolute dualism among the Albigenses,
cf. those revealed in the heretical tract written a few years later, No. 58.
23. II Cor. 13:3.
24. Rom. 7:14,
25. Cf. Ps. 26 (A.V. 27): 13; 141:6 (A.V. 143:5).
26. Ps. 149:3,5,6-7,9.
27. Cf. Ezech. 23:4. This myth is found also in the passage translated in
n. 35, below, and in No. 38, § 11. Runciman (Medieval Manichee, p. 166,
n. 4) suggests that it reached the Cathars through a Greek or Slavonic source
which in turn derived from the Hebrew. See also Newman, Jewish Influ¬
ence, p. 67.
28. John 4:16.
29. Cf. John 8:3-11.
30. The words “recently sprung up” might be regarded as evidence of a
revival at this time of mitigated dualism among the Albigenses, who had
been persuaded to accept absolute dualism some forty years before at the
Council of Saint-Felix-de-Caraman (see No. 23, n. 12). However, evidence
that mitigated dualism had not, in fact, died out is found in a confession
made by a converted heretic in 1181, who testified that he had once believed
Notes to Number 37 719

that Lucifer in his pride had dared to rebel against the true God. The heretic
was one of the two men who had appeared publicly in Toulouse in 1179
and been captured in 1181—see No. 29 and Leclercq, “Le T6moignage de
Geoffroy d’Auxerre,” Studia Anselmiana, XXXI; Analecta monastica, II
(1953), 196. On Albigensian doctrine in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
see Borst, pp. 92-98; Thouzellier, “H6resie et croisade,” RHE, XLIX (1954),
869-72; and idem, Un traite cathare, chap. III.
31. Matt. 21:28.
32. On Bogomil views of the relationship between God, Christ, and the
devil, see p. 15, above, and n. 55. In a gloss on the Gospel used in the
Bogomil church of Bosnia, the man with two sons is said to be the Father
invisible, the younger son the fallen angels, the elder son the angels who
remained faithful (A. V. Solovjev, “La Doctrine de Peglise de Bosnie,” in
Academie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des sciences
morales et politiques, 5th ser., XXXIV [1948], 502). About 1240, Moneta
of Cremona wrote that the Cathars believed that the devil and the angelic
spirit in Adam were brothers, the devil being the elder of the two; see No.
50, n. 24.
33. Dessotulati quia pertusos sotulares ferunt: Waldensian evangelists
adopted special sandals and were accordingly referred to in other sources
as sandaliati, insabatati, etc. See No. 38, § 18; No. 54, § 10; No. 55, II, 2;
also Du Cange, s.v. “insabatati.**
34. On them, see also No. 45, part C, § 27.
35. A short sketch of Catharist doctrine is found standing alone and
untitled in one manuscript. It seems to be related to this proclamation and
to the related passage in No. 38, but has some interesting variations. It was
published in Garvin and Corbett, eds., The Summa contra haereticos Ascribed
to Praepositinus, Appendix B, p. 292, and reads as follows: “The Mani-
chaeans say there are two gods and two beginnings: a good God and a malign
god. The malign they hold to be the creator of this world, author of the
Mosaic law. John the Baptist, they say, is damned. The Christ who appeared
in this world was a pseudo-Christ and had pseudoapostles. They aver, also,
that the Christ through whom we hope for salvation was bom in a celestial
Jerusalem. Christ [bom of] Joseph and Mary, suffered in a celestial Jeru¬
salem, betrayed by His brothers. They say that the good God had two wives,
Collam and Hoolibam [sic], from whom He engendered sons and daughters
in human fashion. They say that He had to do with the wife of the malign
god, and the malign god, enraged thereby, sent his son into the court of the
good God, whom he deceived, and took from thence gold and silver, human
and animal souls, and sent them forth and dispersed them among his seven
realms, those, indeed, to which Christ was sent. Hence, they say, Christ
suffered seven times. They also declare that Christ was the husband of Mary
Magdalen. To show this, they explain that he was alone with her three times:
in the temple, in the garden, and at the well. They say that each one shall
regain his wife, his sons, and his property in the kingdom of God. Certain
720 Notes to Number 37

of them believe that when the soul leaves the human body, unless one
shall die in their sect, it goes into another body, either human or animal;
others say only into a human body.'*

38. A DESCRIPTION OF CATHARS AND WALDENSES

BY PETER OF VAUX-DE-CERNAY

1. In a letter to Innocent III which serves as a preface (§§ 1-4), the author
states his purpose, to show how the Church in Languedoc was saved, and
explains his plan of work. He uses the word Albigenses to refer to anything
connected with the heretics of southern France (see § 3 and the editor’s
notes, p. 3). The term “Albigensian heretics” was probably coined by a
chronicler in 1181; it is in the title of canon 4 of the Council of Tours
(1163), but that is probably a later addition, for the term is not in the text
of the canon (Mansi, Concilia, XXI, 1177). As an adjective, “Albigensian”
did not imply that the heretics were confined to the city or the diocese of
Albi. In Peter's text, references to the orthodox diocese of Albi use the form
Albiensis instead of Albigensis, and in the years before 1200 writers were
also speaking of the Languedocian heretics as “heretics of Agen,” or “here¬
tics of Toulouse.” At the time of the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229), the
substantive Albigenses came into general use for heretics throughout Lan¬
guedoc. See the discussion of these words in Devic and Vaissete, Histoire
de Languedoc, VII, 33-37; Borst, p. 249, n. 5; Thouzellier, “Her6sie et
croisade,” RHE, XLIX (1954), 867, n. 3; and Lacger, “L’Albigeois pendant
la crise de l*albig6isme,” RHE, XXIX (1933), 276-83.
2. Cf. Matt. 13:25.
3. Ps. 106. (A.V. 107):40.
4. From the Cistercian abbey of Fontfroide, near Narbonne. They were
commissioned as legates by Innocent III in 1204. Ralph died in 1207; Peter
was murdered in January of the following year, by an unknown hand. The
culprit was generally supposed to be a retainer of Raymond VI, count of
Toulouse. Peter’s death was the immediate occasion for preaching the
crusade against the heretics. See the works cited in No. 36, n. 1, and also
H. Zimmerman, Die papstliche Legation in der ersten Halfte des 13, Jahr-
hunderts vom Regierungsautritt lnnocenz9 III bis zum Tode Gregors IX
(1198-1241) (Veroffentlichungen der Sektion fur Rechts- und Sozialwissen-
schaft der Gorresgesellschaft, XVII [Paderbom, 1913]), esp. p. 58.
5. Cf. II Cor. 4:6.
6. Heb. 12:15.
7. As the editors of the text point out, the reference appears to be to
several attempts during the twelfth century to combat heresy in Toulouse,
notably those by Bernard of Clairvaux (see No. 14) and by the mission of
1178 (see No. 29).
8. Cf. Jas. 3:15,17.
Notes to Number 38 721

9. Cf. Apoc. 11:4.

10. Horace Ep, i.xvi.52-53.
11. Hec Tolosa, tota dolosa: The author is fond of alliterative phrases
and plays upon words. Some of these we were able to approximate in
English; for others, the alliteration is lost. Note, for example, in § 6, ingressi
et agressi [entered and assailed] and affecti et infecti [weakened and poi¬
soned] ; and in § 9, naturam hereticam et heresim naturalem [heretical nature
and natural heresy] and mirabiliter et miserabiliter [wonderfully and woe¬
fully].
12. The editors of the text (I, 8, n. 2) here point out that the allusion is
probably based upon an incorrect reading of Jordanes Roma et Getica.
{MGH, Auctores antiquissimi, V, 41). The reference goes back to Mero¬
vingian times.
13. Matt. 23:33.
14. Cf. Horace Ep, i.x.24.
15. Juvenal Sat. n.79-81.
16. Terre Provincialis: i.e., the area later to be called Languedoc.
17. Defensores et receptatores: These terms rapidly assumed technical
meaning as to the degree of implication in heresy. In a “consultation,” pre¬
sumably written about 1242 by Raymond of Pennafort (d. 1275) as a guide
to inquisitorial practice in the see of Tarragona, “defenders” were defined
as those who knowingly defended heretics in word or deed, hindering the
Church’s prosecution. “Receivers” were those who knowingly welcomed
heretics to their houses several times. Lesser weight of guilt attached to
“concealers” (<celatores), who did not report heretics when they saw them,
and “secreters” (occultores), who conspired to prevent such reports. All such
persons were to some degree “fautors” (fautores), suspect of heresy, who
must purge themselves. The consultation is published in F. Vails Taberner,
ed., “El diplomatari de Sant Ramon de Penyafort,” Analecta sacra Tarra-
conensia: Anuari de la Biblioteca Balmes, V (1929), 254-61.
18. It may be worth noting that this whole discussion of the heretics,
§§ 10-18, inclusive, is written in the past tense. Did the author presume that
when he wrote heresy had been eradicated by the crusade? Or is this due to
his reliance on some source? In § 19 he again writes in the present tense.
19. Gen. 2:17, with changes.
20. John 8:3-11.
21. Cf. Apoc. 15:7; 16:1.
22. Isa. 1:4; I Tim. 4:2; and Rom. 16:18, respectively.
23. Matt. 21:13; Apoc. chap. 17.
24. A not uncommon argument of the heretics, mentioned, perhaps for
the first time, by Eckbert of Schonau (Sermones xi.14, in Migne, PL, CXCV,
92) and often repeated. See Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 5 and note; Moneta of
Cremona Adversus catharos et vaiderises, p. 300; No. 55, I, § 4; Vidal,
“Doctrine et morale,” RQH, LXXXV (1909), 401; and Haskins, Studies in
Mediaeval Culture, p. 252, where it is attributed to the Waldenses.
722 Notes to Number 38
25. On these officials and their functions, see No. 49 and No. 51, §§ 8-10.
26. See Introduction, pp. 43-44, above.
27. Bertrand de Saissac was a prominent member of the nobility in the
viscounty of Beziers. He seems to have had some reputation as an arbiter
(Devic and Vaissete, Histoire de Languedoc, VIII, 412-14) and in 1194 was
appointed guardian of the son and heir to Roger, viscount of Beziers. He
got into trouble with the clergy and was, as our author indicates, favorable
to heretics.
28. See No. 24, n. 14.
29. Cf. John 20:22.

39. AN INCIDENT AT COLOGNE IN 1163

1. The date is given in Annates Coloniensis maximi, in Fredericq, Corpus,

1,42-43, which says that the heretics came from Flanders. The number of vic¬
tims stated in that source was four men and a girl, but the Chronicon breve
Coloniensis puts it at six men and two women (ibid., p. 40), and an account
by Trithemius, written much later, raises the number to eight men and three
women (ibid., p. 41). Probably prosecutions were continued in the vicinity
in following months (see Eckbert of Schonau Sermones vm.iii; ix.viii, in
Migne, PL, CXCV, 52, 84, 88).
2. Ep. 48, in Migne, PL, CXCVII, 224-53, esp. 249 ff.
3. Thouzellier (“Heresie et croisade,” RHE, XLIX [1954], 864-65), on
the basis of Eckbert’s remarks, believes that the heretics of Cologne in 1163
were absolute dualists, but her interpretation of this source is challenged by
other historians, who insist that absolute dualism was not known in Western
Europe before about 1167, at the earliest, when it was first introduced in
Italy and southern France; see Manselli, “Per la storia dell’eresia,” BISIAM,
LXVII (1955), 219-23; and his “II manicheismo medievale,” Ricerche
religiosi, XX (1949), 88-94, as cited by Russell, “Interpretations of Medieval
Heresy,” MS, XXV (1963), 48. Cf. Borst, pp. 94-96.
4. Sermones v.xi; xm.i, in Migne, PL, CXCV, 34, 96.
5. Rainald of Dassel, archbishop (1159-1167) and imperial chancellor
(1156-1167). He was in Italy from 1161 to 1164. The examining body may
have been his regular court or a specially convened synod (Theloe, Die
Ketzerverfolgungen, p. 58, n. 220).
6. Eckbert (Sermones vni,iii, in Migne, PL, CXCV, 52) calls him an arch-
Cathar (perhaps bishop?). Two other heretics, Marsilius and Theoderic, are
named in the Chronicon breve Coloniensis (see n. 1, above) ; the second of
these, according to Eckbert (ibid.), was burned at Bonn.
7. The date of the incident in Spain was probably about 1219. The
attitude toward the Eucharist is characteristic of the Waldenses, who were
the subject of an edict banning heretics, issued by Alfonso II of Aragon in
1194 (Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen, pp. 143-46).
8. St. Lawrence, martyred August 10, 258, was burned on a gridiron.
Notes to Number 40 723

9. This is not Caesarius’s fancy. Several of the chronicles narrate the

voluntary death of one or more of the group; see, for example, Anndles
Coloniensis maximi, in Fredericq, Corpus, I, 43.

40. THE FATE OF HERETICS IN ENGLAND

1. Heretics who worked as weavers were reported in the diocese of

Worcester in the time of Bishop Roger (1164-1179), who asked the advice
of Gilbert Foliot, bishop of London (1163-1188), on how to proceed against
them and was told to use preaching and force. The result is unknown; see
Gilbert Foliot Epistolae 249,250, in Migne, PL, CXC, 935-36. Other sources
for the incident described here are listed in Russell, Dissent and Reform,
p. 310, n. 80.
2. R. W. Eyton (Court, Household, and Itinerary of Henry II [London,
1878], pp. 41-88, esp. 82) puts the king at Oxford in December, 1163, and
again for the last three months of 1165, and (p. 88) dates the assembly
which condemned the heretics about Christmas, 1165. Borst (p. 94) suggests
the date 1162. Russell (Dissent and Reform, p. 309, n. 79) argues for
1165/66.
3. Publicani (in other sources found as popelicani, popelicant, etc.): This
was one of the earliest of specific sect names used in Western Europe.
Crusaders had probably brought it back from the East, where they had
heard the Greek pavlikianoi applied to contingents in the Moslem army, to
ethnic groups in the Balkans, and to heretics (Runciman, Medieval Manichee,
p. 122); references to the word in narratives of the crusades are collected
in Garsoian, The Paulician Heresy, pp. 14-17. It seems to have carried
implications from the biblical “publicans” (Matt. 21:31; see also No. 41,
n. 3). As a name for heretics it first appears in a letter of Louis VII of
France in 1162 (Bouquet, Recueil, XV, 790), after which it is not uncom¬
mon in sources written in northern Europe. References are collected in
Borst, p. 247, n. 1; see also Puech, “Catharisme m£di6val et Bogomilisme,”
in Convegno “Volta,” Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, A tti, 8th ser., XII
(1957), 59-62.
4. Cf. Ps. 3:1.
5. Cf. Cant. 2:15.
6. Pelagius (d. ca. 425), monk and theologian who challenged the concept
of original sin, the practice of infant baptism, and the essential functions
of the Church in human salvation. His doctrines were condemned at the
Council of Ephesus in 431, but traces of them remained until the end of the
sixth century and perhaps later in France and the British Isles.
7. St. Germanus of Auxerre (d. 448) visited Britain in 429 or 430 and
again in 447 to combat Pelagianism.
8. Of him nothing further is known.
9. They were weavers, according to a brief entry in the annals of Tewkes¬
bury (Annales monastici, ed. by H. R. Luard, I, 49).
724 Notes to Number 40
10. Matt. 5:10.
11. Cf. Matt. 5:11.
12. In the Assizes of Clarendon, 1166, Henry II forbade any communi¬
cation with the heretics who had been punished at Oxford (William Stubbs,
Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History,
pp. 145-46). This is the first secular law promulgated against heretics in
the Middle Ages; see Theloe, Die Ketzerverfolgungen, p. 136. There is no
record of further appearance of heresy in England until 1191 in York (ibid.,
p. 54), or thereafter, except 1211, when an Albigensian heretic was burned
at London (De antiquis legibus liber, ed. by Thomas Stapleton, p. 3).

41. “PUBLICANS” AT VEZELAY

1. Pons of Montboissier (1138-1161), brother of Peter the Venerable of

Cluny.
2. This was the culmination of a series of conflicts during the first half
of the twelfth century, the first of which ended with the murder of the abbot
at the time and the burning of the monastery. The revolt of 1152 led to the
establishment of a short-lived commune, which was put down in 1155.
There has been some dispute about this; but Charles Petit-Dutaillis in Les
Communes frangaises: Caracteres et evolution des origines au XVIIle siecle
(L’Evolution de l’humanite, XLIV [Paris, 1947], p. 127 and n. 2, accepts
the commune as a fact. It is a matter of some interest in that Vezelay is one
of the towns in which a charge of heresy coincided with civilian opposition
to temporal control by the clergy (for others, see Nos. 8, 20). The town of
Vezelay, in the department of Yonne, is situated on the Cure River, a few
miles east of the Yonne and about thirty miles northeast of Nevers. Now a
picturesque village, it was in the twelfth century a place of some importance.
The history of Vezelay by Aime Cherest, Vezelay: Etude historique, makes
some useful corrections and additions to the history by Hugh of Poitiers.
The story of the insurrections in the town is told by Leon de Bastard
(“Recherches sur l’insurrection communaie de Vezelay au XIIe siecle,” BEC,
3d ser., II [1851], 339-65), who doubts a true communal uprising in 1152;
his argument is rebutted by F. Bourquelot, “Observations sur Fetablissement
de la commune de V6zelay,” BEC, III (1852), 447-63.
3. Deonarii seu Poplicani: This is the only known occurrence of the first
of these names. De la Barrels suggestion that it is the scribe’s error for
telonarii [tax collectors], is accepted in Migne, PL, CXCIV, 1681; by
Runciman (Medieval Manichee, p. 185), and by Borst (p. 247, n. 1). This
would imply that the heretics were equated in popular opinion with the
publicans of the Bible.
4. The verb is circumvenientibus, which should perhaps be translated as
“passing by,” but the context implies that they were called together to deal
with the problem.
5. Guichard (1165-1180 or 1181). It was during his prelacy that Waldes
Notes to Number 42 725

began to preach at Lyons.

6. Pons of Arsac (1162-1181). He had been present at the debate at
Lombers in 1165 (see No. 28) and would be a member of the mission to
Toulouse in 1178 (see No. 29).
7. Bernard of Saint-Saulge (1160-1177).
8. Walter II of Mortagne (1155-1174).
9. From this narrative the responsibility for pronouncing the death sen¬
tence is not clear, although the implication is that the decision, in one case
modified by the abbot on his own authority, was given by the clergy and
people and executed by the abbot; see Maisonneuve, p. 116, and Theloe,
Die Ketzerverfolgungen, pp. 43-46. Abbot William had, in fact, sought
advice on the correct judicial procedure from Herbert of Boscham, a mem¬
ber of the official family of Thomas Becket who was sharing Thomas’s
exile in France. Herbert replied at length, concluding that the abbot and
associates should fix the guilt of the suspects but that any death penalty
should be pronounced and executed by the king (Ep. 29, in Migne, PL,
CXC, 1462-63). Runciman (Medieval Manichee, p. 122, n. 4) thinks that
it was the lay authorities who carried out the execution of the seven who
were burned.

42. FROM HERESY TO WITCHCRAFT

1. On the general subject of belief in demons, see Henry C. Lea, Materials

toward a History of Witchcraft, ed. by Arthur C. Howland, I, 143-98. For
some examples in sources readily available in translation, see Caesarius of
Heisterbach Dialogus miraculorum, Vol. I, Bk. V, passim (trans. by Scott
and Bland, I, 313-90).
2. For examples of penances to be laid on those who invoked demons
by charms and incantations, see John T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer,
Medieval Handbooks of Penance, esp. pp. 330-31. The canon Episcopi has
been erroneously attributed to the Council of Ancyra in the third century,
but the earliest unmistakable reference to it is its inclusion in a collection
of canon law compiled by Regino of Prum about 900. Thence it found its
way into the Decreta of Burchard of Worms (d. 1095), where it is the first
entry in Book X, devoted to magicians and soothsayers (Migne, PL, CXL,
831-54).
3. See Nos. 3, 9, and 18.
4. On Conrad, see No. 45, part A.
5. The best introduction to the interest of inquisitorial courts in sorcery
and witchcraft is through the fourteenth-century treatises on the institution;
for one example see No. 55, VI, esp. n. 1. The development of papal policy
from Boniface VIII to Innocent VIII may be traced in Joseph Hansen,
Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexen-
verfolgung im Mittelalter (Bonn, 1901), pp. 2-27. The bull of Innocent VIII
has been many times published; see ibid., pp. 25-27.
726 Notes to Number 42
6. The subject of witchcraft in Europe from the fourteenth to the seven¬
teenth century has an extensive bibliography; we mention here only a few
works, principally those written in English, to illustrate the relationship
between witchcraft and heresy. The best introduction in English is an essay
%

by George Lincoln Burr, “The Literature of Witchcraft,” in Papers of the

American Historical Association, IV (1889-1890), 237-66, reprinted in
George Lincoln Burr: His Life by Roland H. Bainton and Selections from
His Writings by Lois O. Gibbon (Ithaca, N.Y., 1943), pp. 166-89. See also
the introduction by Professor Burr to Lea’s Materials toward a History of
Witchcraft. Still of much value are the chapters on sorcery, the occult arts,
and witchcraft in Lea, History of the Inquisition, Vol. Ill, chaps. VI and
VII. Fundamental for a study of the subject are two works by Joseph
Hansen: Zauberwahn, Inquisition and Hexenprozess in Mittelalter und die
Entstehung der grossen Hexenverfolgung (Munich and Leipzig, 1900) and
his already cited Quellen und Untersuchungen. A convenient summary is
Antoinette C. Pratt, The Attitude of the Catholic Church towards Witchcraft
and the Allied Practices of Sorcery and Magic; and a useful guide to the
literature is by Rossell H. Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and
Demonology, which on pp. 558-71 includes a bibliography of some twelve
hundred titles.
The works listed above all treat of witchcraft in Western Europe during
the later Middle Ages as a Christian heresy not to be identified with sorcery
and demonology in general, which are world-wide phenomena. Anthropol¬
ogists have challenged this view as too narrow, insisting that witchcraft lies
in the realm of folklore rather than Christian theology. A spirited presen¬
tation of this point is by Margaret Murray in two books: The Witch-cult of
Western Europe, and The God of the Witches. A later, more cautious
development of the same general thesis is by Arne Runeberg, Witches,
Demons, and Fertility Magic. Some lively reading in the newspapers of 1964
was provided by self-styled witches in England who accepted the Murray
school of thought in explaining themselves.
A volume which fits neither of the categories mentioned above and which
diffuses rather more heat than light is by Montague Summers, The History
of Witchcraft and Demonology. For the author, witchcraft was no delusion,
but a living reality, the god of the witches being in truth the devil. There
is an urbane summing-up of various interpretations of witchcraft in Elliot
Rose, A Razor for a Goat. See also Julio Caro Baroja, The World of the
Witches, trans. by O. N. V. Glendinning.
7. William of Champagne, “of the White Hands,” son of Count Thierry
II of Champagne, uncle of Philip II of France, archbishop of Rheims (1176-
1202), and cardinal.
8. Gervais was a widely traveled courtier of English birth who had been
reared in Rome, studied law in Bologna, and was successively attached to
the households of Archbishop William, Prince Henry of England, and
William II of Sicily. In the service of Otto IV of Germany, to whom he
Notes to Number 42 727

dedicated a book (about 1211), he became marshal of the kingdom of Arles.

As this story indicates, he probably ended his days as a canon in England;
see DNB, VII, 1120-21.
9. See No. 43.
10. See No. 40.
11. The reference is to a tale in the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles
Peter and Pault in which Simon Magus was an opponent of Peter in Rome.
Simon regarded himself as a messiah who had descended through a series
of heavens to travel on earth as a prophet and miracle worker, and claimed
he would ascend again to heaven. On a certain day he did rise in flight,
until St. Peter overcame his magic, whereupon he fell to his death. The
legend may be read in translation in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by A. C.
Coxe, VIII, 480-84; and in The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine,
trans. by Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger, I, 332-36 and passim. See
also Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, pp. 103-11.
12. Witnesses before the Inquisition in the early fourteenth century de¬
scribed Luzabel (more commonly spelled Lucibel) as an angelic creature who
became Lucifer after his rebellion against God or as the son of “the great
devil” who had the name Lucibel while he was in heaven to seduce the
angels (Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 33, and 32, 189, respectively). The name
appears also in William of Nangis La Chronique latine de 1113 d 1300,
ed. by H. Geraud, I, 76, in connection with an outbreak of heresy in Arras
in 1183. See also Borst, p. 152, n. 5.
13. In the paragraph immediately preceding (xxix), Map describes mer¬
cenary troops, whose depredations were fearful both when they were em¬
ployed in feudal war and, in intervals of peace, when they were left to
pillage for themselves. Henry II employed them in the war with his sons in
1173, bringing some to England only once, in 1174. To Map they were
heretics, no doubt, because no place or person, however sacred, was safe
from them and because runaway clerics, monks, and other fugitives found
shelter among them; moreover, the Third Lateran Council of 1179 had
laid the same ban on mercenaries as on heretics and, with special reference
to Languedoc, urged a crusade against them (see p. 650, n. 140). See also
H. Geraud, “Les Routiers au XII« stecle,” EEC, III (1841-1842), 125-47;
and J. Boussard, “Henry II Plantagen6t et les origines de l’armee de metier,”
EEC, CVI (1945-1946), 189-224.
14. John 6:61 (A.V. 60); cf. John 6:67 (A.V. 66).
728 Notes to Number 42
tained as centers of instruction and places of shelter (see No. 49).
18. This is probably an error by Map, for the Cathars used the first seven¬
teen verses of the Gospel of John as an essential part of their ritual of spiritual
baptism.
19. The word “synagogue” was sometimes used in the Middle Ages with
reference to heretical assemblies and schismatic groups and should not here
be interpreted as linking heresy and Judaism. See Puech and Vaillant, Le
Traiti contre tes Bogomiles, p. 238 and n. 16; also Sathanas synagogam in
reference to a heretical refuge at Lavaur (William of Puylaurens Cronica,
ed. by Bessyier, in Troisiemes melanges d'histoire du moyen &ge, p. 121).
In 1387, in a document which seems to confuse Waldenses and Cathars,
the former are said to meet in a synagoga to hear preaching, share blessed
bread, and engage in sexual orgies (Dellinger, Be itrage, II, 251-57). Facere
synagogam in that document (p. 255) seems to refer specifically to the
distribution of the bread. By the fifteenth century, the words synagoga
diabolica were used to refer to the witches’ Sabbat (Runeberg, Witches,
Demons, and Fertility Magic, pp. 24, 29; cf. p. 162). Here Map may be no
more than recalling the biblical “synagogues of Satan” (Apoc. 2:9; 3:9).
20. The Latin makes a play on words: pati quod desideravit ... et a pa-
ciendo Paterini dicuntur. Cf. the decree of Frederick II which was copied by
Bernard Gui (Practica, ed. by Douais, p. 307): Set in exemplum marlirum . . .
Patherennos se nominant, velut expositos passioni.
21. See No. 40.
22. Whether an actual incident gave rise to the story Map tells here we
have no way of knowing. He may have heard the tale at the time of his trip
to Rome for the Lateran Council of 1179. Borst (p. 103, n. 19) cites this
passage as evidence for heresy at Vezelay, on which see No. 41.
23. Gen. 3:6.
24. Cf. the similar tale involving Eudo (No. 18, part B). Another story
of magical foods is encountered in the Cronica of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines
(MGH SS, XXIII, 845).
25. Virtutibus: See Du Cange, s.v. “virtus,” 2, and the references there
cited.
26. Without knowledge of the date, we have no basis for precise iden¬
tification. Possibly it was Robert of La Tour du Pin (1173-1195).

43. THE SPREAD OF HERESY IN NORTHERN EUROPE

1. See the list of incidents and sources in Borst, p. 103, n. 19.

2. 1174-1183. He died on April 19.
3. On him, see No. 42, n. 7.
4. Catafrigias: A synonym for Cathari, it had been applied to heretics in
Cologne in 1163; see Borst, p. 241, n. 6.
5. In canon 27 of the Third Lateran Council (1179).
6. By the canon referred to in the preceding note (Mansi, Concilia,
Notes to Number 44 729

XXII, 231-33), the property of condemned heretics was awarded to the

secular power which aided the Church in the prosecution. Here the arch¬
bishop seems to have claimed the right to share. On the procedure used in
these trials, see Maisonneuve, pp. 119-20.
7. Bishop of Metz (1180-1212). The episode is otherwise undated in our
source. Havet (“L’H6resie et le bras s6culier,” BEC, XLI [1880], 515, n. 2)
places it between 1209 and 1212. We suggest the date 1199-1200 on the
basis of Innocent Ill’s letters, referred to in n. 10, below.
8. The reference may be to the provincial council held at Montpellier in
December of 1195, at which canon 27 of the Third Lateran Council (1179),
anathematizing heretics and mercenary soldiers, was renewed. But there is
no record of the presence of the bishop of Metz at that council. See Mansi,
Concilia, XXII, 668.
9. Rom. 10:15.
10. The bishop of Metz appealed to the pope in 1199 against certain
persons who insisted on reading and discussing among themselves the Gos¬
pels, the Pauline letters, Psalms, Job, the Moralia of St. Gregory (an exegesis
of the Book of Job), and other works in vernacular translation; when the
clergy sought to deter them they turned on them in wrath. Innocent III
in reply praised the zeal of the people for the Scriptures but not their
private meetings and ordered the bishop to investigate carefully the nature
of the translations. When the people grew more recalcitrant, the pope
entrusted another investigation to three Cistercian abbots (Regesta 11.141,
142,235, in Migne, PL, CCXIV, 695 ff., 793; Potthast 780, 781, 893). We
are told in a later report by a chronicler that some of the translations were
burned by the abbots (<Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium, in MGH
SS, XXIII, 878). Maisonneuve (pp. 164-65) discusses the incident as one
which set precedents for the Inquisition. On the use of vernacular transla¬
tions of the Bible and devotional works, see the Introuction, pp. 63, 64-65,
above.

44. THE AMALRICIANS

1. Borst, p. 114, n. 119; Cohn, Pursuit of the Millennium, chaps. VII-

VIII; Claus-Peter Clasen, “Medieval Heresies in the Reformation,” Church
History, XXXII (1963), 392-413.
2. Many of the sources are printed in the study by Germaine C. Capelle,
Autour du dicret de 1210, III: Amaury da Bene. D’Alverny, “Un Fragment
du proc&s des Amauriciens,” AHDLMA, XXVI (1951), 325-26, sums up
the views of various scholars and prints a document describing in part the
preliminary examination of some of the sect after their arrest.
3. The names are listed by Caesarius more fully than in other sources
but a few details may be added. A Master Bernard is named in the Chronicon
anonymi Laudunensis (MGH SS, XXVI, 454) and is called the heresiarch of
the group in the Annales Coloniensis maximi (MGH SS, XVII, 825). William
730 Notes to Number 44
the Goldsmith is called “William of Arria, the goldsmith,” in the decree
condemning the group (Chartularium universitatis parisiensis, I, 70; trans.
in Lynn Thorndike, University Records and Life in the Middle Ages, p. 26).
Borst (p. 114, n. 19) denies that this denotes an occupation, for William
was a theologian and is listed among those degraded from clerical office.
According to the decree of condemnation, Dudo also was a priest; Odo and
Elinand were attached to the church of Saint-Cloud; and Guarin was a priest
of Corbeil. Two others, not mentioned by Caesarius, are reported also to
have suffered for their association with the group. Dominic of Triangulo
was burned with the others at Paris (Chartularium, I, 70, in Thorndike,
University Records, p. 26), and a man named Godin was executed in the
region of Amiens, probably soon afterward {Chronicon anonymi Laudunen-
sis, in MGH SS, XXVI, 454).
4. This would have been prior to Stephen’s consecration as archbishop of
Canterbury. He had lectured in theology at Paris for over twenty years until
his move to Rome, where he was created cardinal, in June, 1206, and was
elevated to the see of Canterbury in 1207. From that date until 1213 he
was in exile at the monastery of Potigny, northeast of Auxerre. Caesarius
a few paragraphs later mentions a Master Stephen, to whom, along with
the bishop of Paris and two other masters, an informer in 1210 reported the
activities of the Amalricians. This raises the question of whether “Master
Stephen” was Stephen of Rheims, who lectured in theology at Paris in the
early thirteenth century and became chancellor of Notre Dame, probably
in 1214; he was sometimes confused with Stephen Langton. For the two
Stephens, see Palemon Glorieux, Repertoire des maitres en theologie de
Paris au XIU* siecle, I, 238-60, 271.
5. I Cor. 12:6.
6. Matt. 24:24.
7. Ralph later became cantor in the church of Cambrai (D’Alverny, “Un
Fragment,” AHDLMA, XXVI [1951], 328, n. 2).
8. Philip II (1180-1223).
9. The future Louis VIII (1223-1226).
10. This and the preceding paragraph are reminiscent of the prophecy
of Joachim of Flora, the Italian mystic, and his theory of the three ages—of
the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In his thought the world was
moving toward the end of the second age, which would occur in 1260. See
Henry Belt, Joachim of Flora; Herbert Grundmann, Neue Forschungen
iiber Joachim von Fiore; and M. W. Bloomfield, “Joachim of Flora,”
Traditio, XIII (1957), 249-309; also M. W. Bloomfield and Marjorie E.
Reeves, “The Penetration of Joachism into Northern Europe,” Speculum,
XXIX (1954), 772-93.
11. John I (1204-1229).
12. Peter of Nemours (1208-1219).
13. On Robert of Curson, see No. 27, n. 1. We are unable to identify the
dean of Salzburg or Brother Thomas.
Notes to Number 44 731

14. How far the leaders had won adherents among laymen is conjectural.
John, a priest of Orsigny, had no doubt instructed his parishioners in some
particulars, for he testified that “when he was arrested and was leaving his
parish, he told his parishioners that they should not put their trust in anyone
who contradicted his words, if any should teach them things other than
what he, himself, had taught” (Maria-Th6r&se d’Alverny, “ Un Fragment,”
AHDLMA, XXVI [1951], 332; see also her remarks, pp. 333-34). William
of Nangis Chronique, I, 137, mentions women with whom they had sinned
and simple folk whom they had deluded.
15. Part of the record of a preliminary examination in the court of the
official of the bishop of Paris survives and has been printed by Mile D’Al¬
verny (“Un Fragment,” AHDLMA, XXVI [1951], 330-33). Before the
bishop himself as presiding officer, John, priest of Orsigny, and Odo,
Elinand, and Stephen—deacon, acolyte, and priest, respectively, of La Celle-
Saint-Cloud—were arraigned. Statements of the charges were read to them.
John admitted certain errors but said there were other things in the statement
he did not understand. Odo and Elinand admitted and repented of their
errors. Stephen admitted some errors, but the record breaks off in the middle
of his response.
16. They were degraded on November 14, 1210; the execution took place
at Les Champeaux in the marketplace on November 20: see part B; also
Thorndike, University Records, p. 27; and D’Alverny (“Un Fragment,”
AHDLMA, XXVI [1951], 328, nn. 3, 4, 5).
17. He had entered the monastery of Saint-Denis but he too was included
in the group sentenced to life imprisonment (Chartularium, I, 70, in Thorn¬
dike, University Records, p. 26).
18. The works thus banned were probably Aristotle’s Physics, his De
anima, and part of his Metaphysics (Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of
Europe in the Middle Ages, ed by F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, I, 356).
19. The first reference is to David of Dinant, on whom see Gabriel Thery,
Autour du decret de 1210, I: David de Dinant. In the decree of condem¬
nation (Chartularium, I, 70, in Thorndike, University Records, p. 27) the
vernacular works are specified as the Apostle’s Creed and the Lord’s Prayer.
A version of the latter, no doubt the one used by the accused, precedes the
record of the investigation published by Mile D’Alverny (“Un Fragment,”
AHDLMA, XXVI [1951], 330). In English it reads as follows: “Good
Father who art in the heavens and on earth; confirm Thy name in our per¬
sons. Grant us Thy kingdom. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us that which is needful to us each and every day for our souls. Forgive
us our wrongdoings as we forgive others. Keep us from the de[vil’$] wiles
(des enginz du de...). Deliver us from all evils.”
20. Cf. Eccles. 1:2.
732 Notes to Number 45

45. THE VARIETIES OF HERESY

1. He seems to have used one document which led him into an error about
the doctrine of the Concorezzenses (Dondaine, “La Hierafchie cathare, I,”
AFP, XIX [1949], 303).
2. Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte, II, 52-84.
3. On Conrad see Balthasar Kaltner, Konrad von Marburg und die In¬
quisition in Deutschland. A brief treatment in English will be found in Lea,
History of the Inquisition, II, 325-46.
4. Conrad Tors was a Dominican, John a layman. After the murder of
Conrad of Marburg and the revulsion of feeling induced by his overzealous
prosecutions, both of these men also died violently (Kaltner, Konrad von
Marburg, pp. 138-40, 172-73; Lea, History of the Inquisition, II, 333-34,
345).
5. On the policy of Gregory IX, see Ludwig Forg, Die Ketzerverfolgung
in Deutschland unter Gregor IX. There is a brief treatment in Maisonneuve,
pp. 257-64.
6. From this point, the narrative parallels closely that in Mansi, Concilia,
XXIII, 241.
7. Lea (History of the Inquisition, II, 331) presumes from this that they
belonged to a group called Luciferians, but it is a hazardous assumption.
It may be noted that Gregory IX does not mention them by name in a letter
of February, 1231, in which he catalogues and excommunicates seven groups
(Les Registres de Gregoire IX, ed. by Auvray, Vol. I, No. 539).
8. A letter of June 25, 1231, to the archbishop of Trier, enclosing a
decree of the senator of Rome against heretics (Johann Friedrich Bohmer,
Acta imperii selecta, pp. 665-67).
9. See No. 15, n. 38.
10. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (Chronica, in MGH SS, XXIII, 878, 945),
twice tells a similar tale* in which heretics were said to name individuals
“St. Mary,” “Holy Church,” etc.
11. Mansi, Concilia, XXIIII, 241, says that three men and the woman
Leuchard were burned.
12. The date was copied into the Prologue from a passage in the tract
where Salvo Burci had recorded it exactly because he wished to show how
recently formed were the sects he discusses. Nothing more is known of
Monachus. The family name (del Cario or del Cairo) was well known in
medieval Piacenza, and Monachus was not an unusual given name (Ilarino
da Milano, “II ‘Liber supra Stella,’” Aevum, XVI [1942], 288-92).
13. This is an adaptation of the first sentence of the Gospel of Luke.
14. See Apoc. 8:11.
15. The text seems not to be entirely clear: et quidem dicunt id est
Catheri, qui Caloianni et eciam Francigene nuncupantur.. . . The name
Francigene was applied to Cathars who, according to Anselm of Alessandria,
had established a bishopric in northern France after the Second Crusade (see
Notes to Number 45 733

No. 24). Their bishop, Robert of Epernon, participated in the council of

heretics at Saint-Felix-de-Caraman (No. 23, n. 12). Before 1250, perhaps as
early as 1233-1239, Cathars of northern France migrated to Italy (Borst,
p. 231; Iiarino da Milano, “Le eresie medioevali,” in Grande antoL filos.,
IV, 1602), where they formed the “church of France,” located at Verona and
in Lombardy (see No. 51, § 15).
16. Luke 11:17; Matt. 12:25.
17. Pauperes Leoniste et Pauperes Lombardi et vos Speroniste: The first
of these terms is the form often used for the Poor of Lyons in contem¬
porary Italian sources (see, for example, part C, and No. 51, § 28). Pauperes
Lombardi is the term applied to Italians who broke away from the Poor of
Lyons in 1205; Speroniste is likewise the most common name for the fol¬
lowers of Hugo Speroni (see No. 21).
18. The editor omitted a portion of the text at this point.
19. The author is referring to words of Paul which, in the passage imme¬
diately preceding, had been quoted from I Tim. 4:1: “In the last times some
shall depart from the faith” [italics ours].
20. The editor omitted a portion of the text at this point.
21. Roncho: a place in the vicinity of Piacenza, also called Runcharola
or Roncarolo in other contemporary sources (see part C, below, and No. 54,
§ 10). From John of Ronco came the name Runcarii and its variants, often
used in later years and particularly in Germany to designate heretics who,
presumably, had adopted the doctrines of the Poor Lombards (Iiarino da
Milano, “II ‘Liber supra Stella,’” Aevum, XVII [1943], 98-105). According
to Duvernoy (“Un Traite cathare,” Cahiers d* etudes cathares, 2d ser., XIII
[1962], 25), the form Runcharolorum, found in the Liber contra Manicheos
of Durand of Huesca (ed. by Thouzellier, p. 80), is a variant of Ranchayrol,
a typical Languedocian name, and therefore shows that the heretics referred
to by this name must be differentiated from the Runcarii; but this seems too
heavy a conclusion to be supported by the slender evidence of a variation
in spelling.
22. The editor omitted a portion of the text at this point.
23. Sub regimine Gualdensis: The Italian form of Waldes’s name is also
used in part C.
24. This doctrine, which was shared with and perhaps adopted from
certain of the mitigated dualists (see No. 23, § 2b), differs sharply from the
view of the Poor of Lyons (see No. 52). Salvo Burci’s statement is confirmed
by other sources (Iiarino da Milano, “II ‘Liber supra Stella,’” Aevum, XVII
[1943], 113; also, No. 54, § 15). Yet this had not been one of the points at
issue when a reconciliation between Italian and French factions had been
attempted in 1218 (see No. 46).
25. In the conference held in 1218, referred to in the preceding note, the
Poor Lombards had supported matrimonial life against the arguments for
separation and celibacy advanced by the Poor of Lyons. Salvo Burci’s
testimony, confirmed by that in part C, below, seems to show their doctrine
734 Notes to Number 45
in transition toward the celibacy reported in later sources (Ilarino da Milano,
“II ‘Liber supra Stella/” Aevum, XVII [1943], 110-12).
26. Matt. 19:29.
27. The author uses the same term, impositio manuum, for the Catholic
sacrament of ordination and for the heretical baptism by imposition of
hands.
28. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:17.
29. Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:24.
30. On these officials, see Nos. 49 and 54, §§ 8-10.
31. Matt. 26:75; Luke 22:62.
32. Matt. 5:5.
35. Of. Luke 7:38.
34. Cf. Luke 7:39.
35. According to St. Augustine (De haeresibus, ed. by Muller, pp. 64-
65), Simon Magus taught that God had not created the world and also denied
the resurrection of the body. See also No. 42, n. 11.
36. Moneta of Cremona Adversus Catharos et Valdenses discusses certain
errors in respect of predestination (pp. 549-59) and the Aristotelian theory
of infinity of the world (pp. 478-88, 496-500) but does not attribute them
to specific sects. There are passages on predestination in other polemical
tracts, for example, that of Benedict of Alignan (Grabmann, “Der Franzis-
kanerbischof Benedictus de Alignano,” in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien
P. Michael Bihl, pp. 57-58) and in the Liber contra manicheos of Durand
of Huesca (ed. by Thouzellier, chap. XXI).
37. Cf. Acts 23:8.
38. St. Augustine (De haeresibus, ed. by Muller, pp. 116-19) says that he
learned from Eusebius of a sect in Arabia called A rabid who believed that
souls dissolve when bodies die but will be resurrected at the end of time.
An anonymous inquisitor of Passau in the thirteenth century repeats the sect
name and Augustine’s comment (Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum, XXV,
264). Our author apparently has a garbled version of this in mind.
39. We cannot identify “Zeno” unless it is a scribe’s mistake for “Zaro-
hen,” the name of an oriental sage accused in apocryphal legends of dis¬
puting the teaching of the apostles. He, with Arphaxat, is accused of holding
this error on the nature of the soul. Moneta of Cremona (Adversus Catharos
et Valdenses, pp. 416-29) refutes heretics who say the soul dies with the
body, but remarks that this is not a tenet of either the Cathars or the Wal-
denses. It may be noted that the “genealogy” of error in respect of pre¬
destination given here somewhat resembles the more detailed statements of
the antecedents of the Cathars by Durand of Huesca in his Liber antiheresis
(Dondaine, “Aux Origines du vald6isme,” AFP, XVI [1946], 234) and his
Liber contra manicheos (Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-cathare, p. 237,
n. 14), and by Moneta of Cremona (Adversus Catharos et Valdenses, p. 411).
40. Predestinati ... disperati.
41. We cannot throw any light on the references to the “Great Year” or
Notes to Number 46 735

the city of Sodom. Father Dondaine discovered a different, shorter version

of this passage in another manuscript (see “Durand de Huesea,” AFP, XXIX
[1959], 266). Referring to the first type of Predestinarian described here it
reads, “These are the Patarines”; of the second, “These are false astrologers”;
of the third, “This is the opinion of the rabble.” Of the fourth group, the
comment is that they believe all things arise by chance from eternity.
42. See No. 26, esp. n. 2.
43. Cf. No. 21, where the first two errors stated here are touched on in
the Prologue and are treated in detail in the body of Vacarius’s work. The
error on the Eucharist is not mentioned there, however. Among the “com¬
mon errors” which the Speronists shared with others, the following may
have been included, according to the chapter titles of Book III (Kappeli,
“Une Somme contre les heretiques,” AFP, XVII [1947], 300): (1) that the
Roman Church does not possess the true faith, which exists only in the
heretics’ church and comes from God and the apostles; (2) that a wicked
priest cannot fulfill his office; (3) that oaths are forbidden; (4) that temporal
justice is against God’s will; and (5) that purgatory does not exist.
44. Mi de Prato: This is the only direct reference we have to the schism
among the Poor Lombards. The disappearance of “those of the meadow”
was due to the activities of Durand of Huesca, who sought to reconcile them
to the Church; see the introduction to No. 36, esp. n. 7.
45. On Bernard Prim, see the introduction to No. 36.
46. Cf. the statement in No. 37 that the Rebaptizers were an offshoot of
the Poor of Lyons. They were among the many sects found in Milan in
the mid-thirteenth century according to Stephen of Bourbon; see p. 31,
above.
47. The author’s reticence prevents identifying any but the Arnoldists
(Arnaldones), unless Cappelleti is another name for the associations of
peasants around Le Puy in France who were there called Capuciati. Origi¬
nally formed to keep the peace and destroy marauding bands of brigands,
the Capuciati were denounced as heretics about 1184 (Historia episcoporum
Autissiodorensium, in Bouquet, Recueil, XVIII, 730). Kappeli (“Une Somme
contre les heretiques,” AFP, XVII [1947], 335, nn. 94-95) suggests that
Corrucani may be a corruption of Runcarii and that Milui resembles Pomilui,
a Slavic term for heretics,

46. DISSENT BETWEEN THE POOR LOMBARDS

AND THE POOR OF LYONS

1. Preger suggested dating the letter ca. 1230, but Karl Muller (Die
Waldenser und ihre einzelnen Gruppen bis zum Anfang des 14 Jahrhunderts,
p. 27) argues effectively that it was written soon after the conference.
2, The title in the manuscripts, Rescriptum heresiarchum Lombardie ad
pauperes de Lugduno qui sunt in Alamania [a letter from the heresiarchs of
736 Notes to Number 46
Lombardy to the Poor of Lyons who are in Germany], was supplied by the
anonymous inquisitor who copied the letter into his treatise against heretics
(Preger, Beitrage, pp. 184-86).
3. The question of whether Waldensian societies were composed only of
fully ordained, preaching members—who later, by analogy with the Cathars,
would be called “the Perfect” by Catholic writers (see No. 53)—or also
included their followers, the “believers and friends,” is discussed by Muller
(Die Waideriser, pp. 12-16), who concludes that the first definition h correct.
4. Probably the influence of the Humiliati (see No. 22) was a factor here.
5. To judge from the comments of Salvo Burci (No. 45, part B) and of
an inquisitor writing about 1266 (see No. 54, § 12), the Poor Lombards
were much less numerous than the Poor of Lyons.
6. The meaning of the term “confrater” here is not entirely clear to us;
it may designate the provost elected for a life term who is mentioned in § 4,
of the letter. By the middle of the century the Poor Lombards were de¬
scribed as having a bishop (see No. 54, §§ 10, 12). On the Waldensian hier¬
archy in later years, see pp. 52-53, above.
7. Five of these persons (or six, if the Marinus here is the Maifredus of
§15) were respresentatives of the Italian party in the negotiations of 1218,
and from § 15 we are able to expand the initial / to John in two cases.
Preger’s text reads Thaddeus Marinus, as though this were the name of one
person (cf. Gonnet, Enchiridion, p. 171), but in § 15 Thaddeus is named
separately. Ilarino da Milano (“II ‘Liber supra Stella,’ ” Aevum, XVII [1943],
107, n. 2) punctuates as we do. John Franceschus is perhaps the John
Francigenas named in § 13.
8. Since the letter was preserved in the work of an inquisitor in the
diocese of Passau, which at that time included Bavaria and much of Austria,
it is presumably directed to the Waldenses in that area. The influence of the
Poor of Lyons had spread into Germanic lands along two routes: north and
east from Lyons and by a detour southward into Lombardy, then north
across the Alps (see Pouzet, “Les Origines lyonnaises,” Revue d'histoire
de Veglise de France, XXII [1936], 26; and S. H. Thomson, “Pre-Hussite
Heresy in Bohemia,” English Historical Review, XLVIII [1933], 24).
9. Cf. Phil. 1:3-11.
10. Preger reads: carte, mendacis a fine, quodam Massario... fraudu¬
lenter tradite. We follow Gonnet (Enchiridion, p. 172) and Doiiinger in
reading carte mendacis a fratre quodam Massario. Of Massarius nothing
more is known.
11. Preger reads: in fine cuiusdam cedule, quam nobis tradiderunt,
legitur ad effectum perducerent quod eciam [promiseruni] et hec tria supra-
dicta. We follow Gonnet (Enchiridion, p. 174), who cites Doiiinger and
Muller, in reading perducerent quod est: et hec tria.
12. That is, when a married man or woman wished to adopt the ascetic
life of the preacher, the Lombards insisted that the wife or husband con¬
sent. The Poor of Lyons agreed (see § 12), with reservations about the right
Notes to Number 46 737

of the community to intervene. It may be noted that Waldes, in his profes¬

sion (No. 32), had disavowed the intent to cause married couples to separate.
13. The controversy referred to here arose over questions of organization.
Waldes had taken a stand against any established hierarchy but the Italians
did not agree. The position taken by Thomas is described by Moneta of
Cremona (Adversus Catharos et Vaiderises, ed by Ricchini, p. 403) thus:
Thomas maintained that each individual could transfer to Waldes the right
(ius) to rule as pontiff over him. Therefore the whole congregation could
do so and give him control over all. “Thus the whole society made him
pontiff and prelate over all.” Such an argument, of course, offended the
Poor of Lyons, who preferred annually elected officials to a lifetime hier¬
archical leader.
14. See n. 7, above.
15. He is not otherwise known but must have been an important figure
in the early days of the Poor of Lyons.
16. G. de Cremano in Preger’s text, but we follow Miiller and Gonnet
(Enchiridion, p. 176). Nothing further is known of him or the other spokes¬
men for the Poor of Lyons.
17. I Tim. 4:5.
18. Preger reads: contra confessionem eorum est, quod. Muller (Die
Waldenser, p. 23) tentatively suggests quando instead of quod. We follow
Dollinger and Gonnet (Enchiridion, p. 177) in reading qui.
19. Matt. 5:13.
20. Luke 14:34-35.
21. John 9:31.
22. John 15:4,5.
23. John 15:7.
24. II Cor. 6:14-16.
25. Tit. 1:15-16.
26. II Cor. 5:17.
27. Heb. 2:2-3.
28. Cf. Heb. 10:28-29.
29. Rom. 3:19.
30. Rom. 15:4.
31. Si minister ad hoc conficiendum accesserit ... credimus panis et vim
substanciam post benediccionem esse Christi corpus et sanguinem, alioquin
minime quod ad se et per se.
32. Ps. 102 (A.V. 103):5.
33. Ps. 144 (A.V. 145): 19.
34. Ps. 9 [pt. 2]: 17 (A.V. 9:18).
35. I Cor. 10:17.
36. See Gal. 2:6.
37. We have not found the passage in Cyprian.
38. See Jerome’s commentary on Zephaniah (Migne, PL, XXV, 1440);
the passage is also in Gratian Decretum II, C. i, Q. i, c. 90 (Friedberg, I,
738 Notes to Number 46

391). The scriptural quotation paraphrases Lev. 21:21.

39. See Jerome’s commentary on Haggai in Migne, PL, XXV, 1477.
40. This and the following passage were included by Gratian in his
Decretum (II, C. i, Q. i, cc. 12 and 5, respectively [Friedberg, I, 361, 358])
as from Pope Gregory I. But Friedberg remarks in a note that the exact words
are not found in the letters of Pope Gregory and that he is inclined to ascribe
them to Pope Pascal I (817-824). Simitar passages however, do appear in
the letters of Gregory I; see Paul Ewald, Gregorii l papae registrum episto-
larum (2 vols., Berlin, 1887, 1890), index, s.v. “heresis simoniaca.”
41. We have not identified the passage in the letters of Innocent I. The
scriptural passages are Prov. 28:9 and Mai. 2:2, respectively.
42. I Cor. 13:11.
43. Cf. Acts 5:29.
44. Cf. Gal. 2:5.
45. Cf. Acts 10: esp. w. 45-48.
46. Acts 11:18.
47. Of them nothing further is known.
48. Ps. 118 (A.V. 119): 105.
49. Ps. 18:9 (A.V. 19:8).
50. John 7:38.
51. II Cor. 13:13.

47. A DEBATE BETWEEN A CATHOLIC

AND A PATARINE

1. Cf. the record of the session at Lombers (No. 28), that at Toulouse
(No. 29), the remarks of Bernard of Fontcaude (No. 34), and the debates
during the Cistercian mission in Languedoc, referred to in No. 36, n. 1.
Biographies of the great mendicant preachers also reveal the interest in such
disputations (see the second part of the Introduction, n. 21).
2. The former attribution to Gregory of Florence, bishop of Fano, was
corrected in favor of the layman, George, by Dondaine, “Le Manuel de
Finquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 174-80,
3. See No. 51, § 15.
4. The passage on predestination is the same as one in Moneta of Cre¬
mona Adversus Catharos et Vaiderises, p. 549, but scholars have not agreed
cm the significance of this. Schmidt (Histoire et doctrine, II, 230) believed
that the copyist of the Disputatio was the borrower. Charles Molinier (“Un
Trait6 inedit,” Annales de la faculte des lettres de Bordeaux, V [1883], 246,
n. 3) thought the reverse might be true. Dondaine “Le Manuel de Finquisi¬
teur,” AFP, XVII [1947], 179) was not ready to admit that there was any
dependence of one on the other. The passage is, indeed, found in another
manuscript, independent of these (Prague, Metropolitan Chapter, MS 1561
[N. XXXVII], fols. 122v-123r). Another link between theDisputatio and
Notes to Number 47 739

Moneta’s work does not seem to have been noticed previously. It is that the
chapter on the Eucharist in the Disputatio is virtually identical with
Moneta’s treatment of the subject, except for the sequence of sentences
(cf. the edition of Mart&ne and Durand, cols. 1728-31, with the text of
Moneta, p. 300, line 6, p. 302). Of nine heretical statements rebutted by
Moneta all but one are in the Disputatio in the same words; as for the
exception, the words of the Disputatio are found in another place in Moneta’s
tract (p. 296, col. 2). The only difference between the two passages is that
the first two items given by Moneta are placed last in the Disputatio.
5. Cf. II Tim. 3:1; I Tim. 4:1.
6. Cf. II Tim. 4:3.
7. Cf. Rom. 12:3.
8. Jas. 1:17.
9. Cf. Ezech. 13:5.
10. We omit the table of chapters which occurs at this place in the text.
11. Martene and Durand omit these three words; we follow Ilarino da
Milano.
12. John 1:3.
13. John 1:10; cf. v. 11.
14. Ephes. 3:9.
15. Ephes. 2:10.
16. Heb. 3:4.
17. Rom. 11:33.
18. Rom. 11:36.
19. I Tim. 4:3.
20. Apoc. 10:6.
21. Acts 4:24.
22. Acts 17:24. On variant readings (the world/this world) in this verse,
see Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-cathare, p. 9, note.
23. John 1:3.
24. John 1:10.
25. We follow Ilarino da Milano: corpora nostra et omnia alia visibilia.
Martene and Durand have corruptibilia ista visibilia.
26. Col. 1:15-16.
27. Heb. 1:10.
28. Heb. 1:11.
29. II Pet. 3:7.
30. Ibid.
31. I Cor. 11:12. The author alters the biblical text, which reads: “For
as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman.”
32. Ilarino da Milano here adds the phrases: “The other world is, indeed,
from God.”
33. John 8:44.
34. Ephes. 2:3.
35. Rom. 9:22.
740 Notes to Number 47
36. John 14:30.
37. Matt. 4:8-9.
38. I John 5:19.
39. Matt. 20:25; Luke 22:25.
40. II Cor. 4:4.
41. Rom. 9:18.
42. Phil. 3:19.
43. John 1:3-4. The heretic is using a punctuation which differs from that
used in the Vulgate and followed in the Douay and Authorized translations,
but it corresponds to that in J. Wordsworth and H. J. White, Novum
Testamentum Latine, editio minor (Oxford, 1911). The Interpreter’s Bible,
VIII, 465, suggests that it is preferable on linguistic and interpretative
grounds, noting that it was so taken by commentators in the first four cen¬
turies of the Christian era. The verses would thus read: “Without Him was
made nothing. That which was made in Him was life." This rendering is also
found in a ritual used by the Albigenses (see No. 57, part B) and also in the
tract of an Albigensian heretic (see No. 58, chaps. XII, n. 125; XIII, n. 138;
XIV, n. 146), where other questions of interpretation arise from the punc¬
tuation.
44. I Kings (A.V. I Sam.) 2:6.
45. John 1:4.
46. Matt. 6:24.
47. I Cor. 8:5.
48. I Cor. 8:5-6.
49. Cf. Luke 8:2.
50. Luke 13:16.
51. Eccles. 1:2.
52. Ps. 38:6 (A.V. 39:5).
53. II Cor. 4:18.
54. John 18:36.
55. The correct reference is Ephes. 3:14-15. The words “in the beginning"
were added to the verse by the author.
56. I Tim. 1:17.
57. Heb. 1:2.
58. Heb. 11:3.
59. Rom. 9:21, with changes in the word order.
60. Jude 1:4.
61. Ibid.
62. Jas. 1:15.
63. Gen, 2:17.
64. Gen. 6:2.
65. Gen. 2:8.
Notes to Number 48 741
48. SUBJECTS AND TEXTS FOR PREACHING
AGAINST HERESY
1. Douais, La Somme des autorites, pp. 7-22. See also the remarks on the
techniques of preaching and disputation in Ilarino da Milano, “Fr. Gregorio/'
Aevum, XIV (1940), 108.
2. See the introduction to No. 49.
3. Douais’s No. I {La Somme des autorites, pp. 34-41) comes from Paris,
B.N., MS lat. 174, fol. 181v. His Nos. II and III (pp. 42-66) are from the
same library, MS lat. 13152, fols 1-3. His No. IV (pp. 67-143) is from
Toulouse, MS 379, fols. 76v-82b. A better copy of it, unnoticed by Douais,
is in Collection Doat, XXXVI, fols, 129r-203r. Two more compilations of
texts, in format exactly like those discussed here, but differing in the range
of topics, are in Paris, B.N., MS lat. 14927, fols. 2r-7r, and still another is
mentioned in Dondaine, “Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 262-63.
4. We follow for chaps. XI-XIII the titles printed by Douais in his No. II,
the text of which corresponds to Leipzig MS 894.
5. Deus omnipotens in Douais. Leipzig MS 894 has David, and all the
texts cited refer to him.
6. Secundum humanitatem in Douais. Leipzig MS 894 has divinitatem.
Cf. chap. XXVII.
7. That is, the angels who fell from heaven. Cf. Alan of Lille Quadri-
partita, in Migne, PL, CCX, 317, and Moneta of Cremona (No. 50, part A).
8. In this chapter the scriptural citations are interrupted by a harangue
and challenge to heretics on the subject of Christ’s body. This passage
appears also in the summa of James Capelli (see No. 49) on pp. CXVI-
CXX of Bazzochi’s edition, where the same scriptural texts cited as proofs
appear in the same order as in this chapter.
9. Douais adds: “and the attributes of a soul” (et anime qualitates), which
we omit, following Leipzig MS 894, because of the wording of the next
chapter title.
10. Chap. XI, part B, of the Summa contra haereticos attributed to
Prevostin of Cremona (see No. 26) deals with the same subjects. All the
citations from the New Testament used there are the same as those used in
this chapter (including two from Ephesians which appear only in the Leipzig
MS), and are given in almost the same order.
11. We follow Leipzig Ms 894: Quod quilibet tenetur baptizari et quod
prodest ante discretam etatem. Douais reads: De quibus iure baptizati[s] et
quid prodest illis qui discretionem et etatem non habent.
12. The content of this chapter much resembles chap. X, part B, § 2
(pp. 155-57) of the work of Prevostin cited in n. 10. All but two of the
citations are the same in both works.
13. The content of this chapter is close to that of chap. X, part B, § 1,
of the work of Prevostin (pp. 150-55). Most of scriptural citations are in
both and in the same order.
742 Notes to Number 48

14. The content of this chapter is comparable to chap. VI, part B, of the
work of Prevostin, having nineteen citations of the same verses in much the
same order, although the summa of Prevostin has many additional com¬
ments.
15. The content of this chapter is comparable to chap. VIII, part C, of
the work of Prevostin (pp. 135-38), the citations being largely the same and
appearing in almost the same order.
16. II Pet. 2:3.

49. JAMES CAPELLI ON THE CATHARS

1. Uarino da Milano, “La ‘Summa contra haereticos’ ” (full citation later

in this Introduction), pp. 66-82. He also suggests (p. 78) that James Capelli
might have been an inquisitor.
2. Demonstration of these relationships is not feasible here but a discus¬
sion of them may be found in an unpublished study: Walter L. Wakefield,
“The Treatise against Heretics of James Capelli” (Ph.D. dissertation, Colum¬
bia University). The article in Franciscan Studies cited in No. 35, n. 3, also
deals with this subject.
3. “Rapport... Etude sur quelques manuscrits des biblioth&ques d’ltalie,”
Archives des missions scientifiques et litteraires, 3d ser., XIV (1888), ISO-
53. The manuscript Molinier examined is Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana,
J.5. Inf. Molinier prints its table of chapter on pp. 280-82, and on pp. 289-90 a
passage which constitutes part of our third excerpt.
4. Beitrage, II, 273-79. The manuscript is Cesena, Biblioteca Malates-
tiana, Pluteus I, viii. Dol linger selected passages at random.
5. There is another copy of the treatise in MS 527 of the library of the
Metropolitan Chapter, Prague, fols. lllr-131v; and Dondaine (“Durand de
Huesca,” AFP, XXIX [1959], 266) mentions one in the library of the chapter
at Seville: Cabildo, Colombina, MS 5-1-26, fols, 25r-87r.
6. Molinier (as cited in n. 3), p. 151; Ilarino da Milano, “La ‘Summa
contra haereticos,’ ” Collectanea franciscana, X (1940), 68.
7. This passage is found in the Cesena manuscript (hereafter referred to
as C), fols. 27v-28r.
8. Mark 16:16.
9. The author has in mind friars delegated by their provincial chapters
to investigate affairs in individual houses of an order.
10. Arbitrium suum. Bazzocchi (hereafter cited as B) omits suum.
11. Protrahit. B: perthrait.
12. Docet. B: nocet.
13. John 1:1 ff.
14. All the foregoing passage from the heading “On the Customs of
Heretics’* to this point is found in virtually the same words in Moneta of
Cremona Adversus Catharos et Valdenses, pp. 277-78. This is only one of a
number of such parallel passages.
Notes to Number 49 743

15. Such oft-repeated charges are not supported by evidence from the
sources of this period. It may be, however, that suicide to avoid falling into
the hands of the Inquisition or while in its custody, or deaths which resulted
from the refusal of invalid Cathars to eat when they were too ill first to say
the Lord’s Prayer (see No. 51, § 7) account for the considerable emphasis
which later writers placed on suicide among the Cathars. In the last quarter
of the thirteenth century in Italy and early in the fourteenth century in
France, the practice of “endura” did appear. It was described as the with¬
holding of food and drink after baptism, from the moribund or from
children, for in such cases the consolamentum had been administered with¬
out the preliminary demonstration of the recipients’ ability to endure the
abstinence imposed on the Perfect and they might have been unable to
maintain their purity. It seems to have been rarely practiced by those who
had been perfected in the usual way. See Charles Molinier “L’Endura,”
Annales de la Faculty des lettres de Bordeaux, 1st ser., Ill (1881) 282-99;
and Yves Dossat, “L’Evolution des rituels cathares,” Revue de synthese,
XXIII (1948), 29-30. However, Manselli (“Per la storia dell’eresia,” BISIAM,
LXVII [1955], 225-31) argues, from a reference to martyrdom in the recan¬
tation of a heretic in the twelfth century, that the endura was practiced then.
16. Se bone operari. B: se bona opera.
17. II Cor. 11:13-15 and Rom. 10:2-3.
18. Per dulces sermones. B: perducentes sermones.
19. The following passage is found in C, fol. 30v.
20. Perfidie. B: per fidem.
21. Quomodo. B: quando.
22. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19.
23. I Cor. 10:4.
24. Cf. Luke 22:19.
25. Quandocumque. B: quaecumque.
26. Unicuique portiunculam. B: unicuicumque particulam.
27. This ceremony, on which see also Nos. 51, § 5; 54, § 8; and 55, I,
2, has been likened to the agape, the love-feast of early Christianity but, as
pointed out by Borst (p. 201, n. 31), it is more properly compared with the
Eulogia, a distribution of blessed but not consecrated bread to those who
were not present at Communion. References to it abound in testimony be¬
fore the Inquisition; see, for example, Douais, Documents, II, 27, 34, 39,
43, 45, 50, and on many other pages.
28. The following passage is in C, fol. 32r-v.
29. Tamem. B: tantum.
30. See No. 54, § 6.
31. John 15:20.
32. Mark 13:13.
33. Matt. 5:11, with a slight change in wording.
34. Apoc. 22:2.
35. This is the Service, also described in No. 51, § 7. A ritual for this
744 Notes to Number 49

monthly penitential gathering is translated in No. 57, part B. Catholic

sources, especially the inquisitorial records, usually refer to it as apparel-
lamentum; see the citations listed in Borst, p. 200, n. 28.
36. The following passage is found in C, fol. 39r.
37. Cf. Gal. 5:24.

50. MONETA OF CREMONA: EXCERPTS FROM

A SUMMA AGAINST THE CATHARS

1. A passage in the printed edition (p. 245) indicates that Moneta was
writing in 1244 but there are two manuscripts in which, in the same passage,
the date 1241 is indicated; see DTC, X, 2211; and Dondaine, “Le Manuel
de Finquisiteur,” AFPy XVII (1947), 179, n. 26. Moneta also writes (p. 402)
that it had been eighty years since Waldes began to preach in Lyons. If he
were writing in 1241 this estimate would be too great by at least a decade;
but the terms of the reference are not exact enough to contradict the earlier
statement seriously.
2. Tetricus is named on pp. 61, 71, 79. It has been suggested that he
should be identified with the canon of Nevers who fled to southern France,
to escape prosecution, changed his name from William to Theodoric, and
won great fame among the Cathars. See No. 59, I, 19, and n. 84; and also
Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, Hystoria albigensis, ed. by Guebin and Lyon, I,
24; and Molinier, “Un Traite inedit,” Annates de la Faculte des lettres de
Bordeaux, V (1883), 228.
3. Desiderius is named on pp. 248, 347, 357. On him, see No. 54, § 3.
4. Moneta refers to heretical works, which he does not identify, on pp.
2, 42, 94, 398. Duvernoy (“Un Trait6 cathare,” Cahiers d’etudes cathares,
2d ser., XIII [1962], 29-30) believes that Moneta knew the treatise translated
in our No. 58, Venckeleer (“Un Recueil cathare,” RBPHy XXXVIII [1960],
833) thinks that Moneta knew the one translated in our No. 60, part A.
Moneta also knew the theories of leadership discussed among the Poor
Lombards; see No. 46, n. 13.
5. See nn. 27, 28, below; also the introduction to No. 49. Another case
in point is that the passage on absolute dualism in part A here is very close
to one in the Brevis summula (see No. 53 ; ed. by Douais, pp. 115-21; ed. by
Molinier, pp. 199-206). If one comes directly from the other, Moneta may
be thought to be the borrower; however, it is more likely that both tracts
derive from a third source.
6. It is well attested that St. Dominic died in Moneta’s cell at Bologna in
1221 and that Moneta shared in activities connected with church building
in Cremona in 1228 and 1233. His name is also found affixed to a socida,
an agricultural investment in which risk and profit were jointly shared
(Mauri Sard and Mauri Fattorini, De Claris archigymnasii bononiensis pro-
fessoribus a saecula XI usque ad saeculum XIV, new ed. [2 vols., Bologna,
Notes to Number 50 745
1888-1896], 11, 243). Legends of his courage in the face of heretical threats,
and of his becoming blind from study appeared in the sixteenth century; see
Ricchini’s Introduction to the treatise, pp. viii-ix.
7. A volume of 560 folio pages with double columns.
8. II Cor. 4:4.
9. Cf. Ps. 50:14 (A.V. 51:12).
10. The phrase is repeatedly used in the heretical rituals in No. 57.
11. I Pet. 1:12.
12. The word is used frequently with reference to the two gods and their
creations in No. 59, II, § 3; IV, § 9.
13. That is, angelic creatures.
14. A.V. Ps. 102:26-27.
15. A.V. Ps. 36:3.
16. A.V. Ps. 127:1.
17. A.V. Ps. 62:10.
18. Reading eos for earn of the text.
19. Matt. 18:28,29.
20. John 21:17.
21. Matt. 10:10.
22. Several glosses on the Gospel which were used in the Bogomil church
of Bosnia are described in A. V. Solovjev, “La Doctrine de l’eglise de
Bosnie,” Academie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des lettres et des
sciences morales et politiques, 5th ser., XXXIV (1948), 501-11. Glossing Luke
10:30-35 less thoroughly than does this passage, two of them make several
of the same interpretations—of the traveler, Jerusalem and Jericho, and the
Samaritan. But the priest and the Levite are Moses and John the Baptist.
In one gloss the oil and the wine are God’s mercy; the innkeeper is either
Peter or Paul. In one gloss the two pence are the Jewish faith, in another
the Old and New Testaments. Thus if the Cathars derived this interpretation
of the parable from the Bogomils and if it is accurately described by Moneta,
there were significant changes in details.
23. Cf. Luke 16:8-9.
24. In a later passage (p. 115) Moneta says that the Cathars believed the
devil to be the elder son. Cf. No. 37, n. 32.
25. Reading serpens for semper of the text.
26. Rom. 7:16.
27. It may be noted that the wording and order of this and the following
four paragraphs correspond quite closely with the titles of chaps. VII-XIV
of No. 48.
28. The reference is to a passage on p. 248. It was borrowed directly or
indirectly from De heresi catharorum in Lombardia (see No. 23, § 2b), be¬
ginning with the words, “Some of the heretics of Bulgaria,” and ending “at
His ascension”; see Dondaine, “La Hi6rarchie cathare, I,” AFP, XIX (1949),
298-99.
29. A.V. Ps. 26:5.
746 Notes to Number 50
30. We omit here and in the following paragraphs Moneta’s rebuttal.
31. The biblical text concerns requirements in the early Church for mem¬
bership in the “order of widows,” which was eventually absorbed in the
regular orders for women; see Interpreter's Bible, XI, 436-37. The heretical
complaint, however, seems to be based on the contrast between orthodox
exclusion of women from the priesthood and their own practice of admitting
women to the consolamentum and full membership in their church.
32. A chariot drawn by oxen, used in warfare in the Italian cities. It bore
an altar and the standards of the city and served as a rallying point for
the warriors.

51. THE SUMMA OF RAINERIUS SACCONI

1. More than fifty manuscripts of the tract survive. To those listed by

Dondaine (“Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII [1947], 173) should
be added Rada Jugoslav Academya 240 (Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare,
p. 35).
2. See the introduction to No. 45.
3. Rainerius was apparently less well informed about the Waldenses; he
gives them only cursory treatment.
4. Dondaine’s edition is a reprinting of the edition of Martene and
Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, V, 1761-76, collated with two
additional manuscripts. Dondaine defends it as an adequate, if not scien¬
tifically established, text in “Le Manual de Tinquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947),
173-74.
5. Ibid., pp. 57-58.
6. At this point in one manuscript (Dublin, Trinity College, MS C.5.19)
appears a variant reading, perhaps a later addition, but one which rounds
out the list of common beliefs: “The Albanenses disagree, saying that no
creature of the good God shall perish. Also they all deny purgatory. It is
the common opinion of all Cathars that one of them would sin very gravely
by deliberately killing any bird, from the smallest to the largest, or any
quadruped, from a weasel to an elephant in size; but they make no reference
to other living things (<animalibus). The passage is printed ibid., p. 174, n. 9.
7. Ordo: See No. 23, n. 10.
8. On the practical importance to an inquisitor of this distinction, see
No. 54, § 5.
9. Professione vel ordine.
10. Cf. No. 54, § 6.
11. See No. 54, § 6, which seems to qualify this assertion.
12. That is, in Western Europe, as opposed to the Balkans.
13. Donnezaeho: Printed versions of the Summa use this for Desenzano,
but one reliable manuscript has the latter form (Dondaine, “La Hierarchie
cathare, II-III ” AFP, XX [1950], 253).
Notes to Number 51 747

14. The words “persists at Vicenza” are supplied at the editor’s suggestion.
15. The numbers refer only to perfected heretics. One manuscript (Munich
MSClm, 311, fol. 96) adds “but they have countless believers” (sed credentes
innumeri).
16. His name is variously spelled in this and other sources. The form we
adopt is that used in No. 54. Borst (p. 236) suggests the dates ca. 1210-1250
for Belesmanza’s episcopate. It is elsewhere suggested that he should be
identified with a heresiarch Belizmen’£, who was condemned by a Serbian
synod in 1221; see Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, pp. 35-36; Puech, “Cathar-
isme et Bogomilisme” (see Bibliography for full citation), pp. 70-71.
17. Rainerius gives the only explicit information we have on this im¬
portant person. The Book of the Two Principles (No. 59) expounds some
of his ideas, and part of the polemic Brevis summula (see No. 53, n. 3) is
said to have been based on information he provided. Dondaine at one time
suggested the form de Luglio for his name (“La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,”
AFP, XX [1950], 256, 286), while Savini (// catarismo, p. 145, n. 1) asserts
that Lugio is derived from the name of l’Osio, a locality near Bergamo.
Other suggestions about him are that he may once have been a Cistercian
monk, and that he had some education in law as well as theology; see
Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, pp. 18-20; and Borst, pp. 270-71.
18. Luke 3:23.
19. See No. 59, II, § 11, for other names applied to the evil god in
accordance with John of Lugio’s ideas.
20. Jas. 3:8.
21. Matt. 6:34.
22. II Cor. 1:17-20.
23. Cf. Ezech. 35:5.
24. Phil. 3:19.
25. With the following passage on creation, cf. No. 59, II, §§ 4 ff.
26. Isa. 45:8.
27. Heb. 6:20.
28. Ephes. 2:10.
29. Gen. 1:1.
30. John 8:25.
31. Ephes. 2:10.
32. Codex Justinianus, Digesta: De haereticis et Manicheis 1.5.2; in
Corpus iuris civilis, Vol. II (Berlin, 1892), p. 50, as cited by Dondaine,
Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 73, note.
33. Gen. 6:4.
34. Job 2:3.
35. Job 30:21.
36. Ecclus. 31:10.
37. Job 4:18.
38. Job 25:5.
39. Gen. 3:1.
748 Notes to Number 51
40. The text has “in the Book of Wisdom,” but the quotation is actually
from Ecclus. 31:9.
41. Rom. 8:20.
42. Rom. 8:22.
43. Isa. 45:22.
44. Cf. Deut. 32:39.
45. Cf. Job 33:14.
46. See the introduction to No. 59.
47. But The Book of the Two Principles is a work of exposition of these
doctrines in part addressed to “beginners”; see the introduction to No. 59.
48. Matt. 1:23, quoting Isa. 7^14.
49. See I Tim. 4:1-3.
50. Pope Sylvester I (314-335), alleged recipient of the Donation of
Constantine.
51. This was not true of the group in 1218; see No. 46.

52. WALDENSES IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

1. That is, the sandal-wearers, wandering teachers; see p. 52, above.

2. Gen. 2:7.
3. See Luke 22:3.
4. Matt. 10:20.
5. Matt. 1:20. The words “and is begotten” are additions to the scriptural
verse.
6. John 14:26.
7. See the description of the sacrament in No. 54, § 15c.
8. We cannot explain the distinction between the ordinary and the “in¬
fernal” Saracens and Albigenses.
9. Apoc., chap. 17.

53. TENETS OF THE ITALIAN CATHARS

1. The manuscript is Paris, B.N., MS lat. 13151, fols. 347c-350d, de¬

scribed by Douais (La Somme des autorites, pp. 22-28), who suggests the
identification of the compiler as an Italian Franciscan, perhaps from Milan
or its vicinity (pp. 25, 27). See also Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, I,”
AFP, XIX (1949), 294-305.
2. See the evaluations by Douais (La Somme des autorites, p. 27) and
Molinier, “Une Texte de Muratori,” Annales du Midi, XXII (1910), 195-96.
3. See No. 50, n. 5. In the present tract thei information is said to have
been given by two heretics: “That they believe and understand all this I
have gathered and learned from the words of John of Bergamo, one of their
preachers and teachers, who told me he had been a Catbar for forty years,
and from the words of John de Cucullio, who, as he told me, was likewise a
preacher and teacher among them for twenty-five years” (Douais, La Somme
Notes to Number 53 749

des autorites, p. 121; Molinier, “Une Texte de Muratori,” Annales du Midi,

XXII [1910], 206; we will hereafter cite these as D and M respectively).
It has been assumed by all commentators that the first of these persons was
John of Lugio, of the Albanenses (see No. 51), but if he revealed these
doctrines after he had been forty years a heretic, the date at which he did
so could hardly have been before 1250; see Dondaine, “La Hierarchie
cathare, I,” AFP, XIX (1949), 297. This is not easy to reconcile with the
fact that Moneta of Cremona seems to have known the basic content of this
passage in 1241; furthermore, while the tenets are those of absolute dualism,
they are not those most characteristic of John of Lugio’s teaching. Was the
informant another heretic of Bergamo named John? Or could the statement
have been made before the schism appeared among the Albanenses in 1230
and could the “forty years” refer to John’s age at the time?
4. Dondaine (“La Hierarchie cathare, I,” AFP, XIX [1949], 294-96) dis¬
cusses the relationship.
5. The substitution of Albigenses for Albanenses appears throughout the
composite treatise, even in a passage copied from the De heresi catharorum
in Lombardia, except that in one place in the chapters of refutation the
words Set Albanenses dicunt appears (D, p. 134). In every known copy of
the catalogue of tenets also (see n. 6, below) Albigenses is substituted for
Albanenses. This may be put down either to the similarity of spelling, which
could confuse an uninformed scribe, or to the notoriety of the Albigenses,
or to the similarity in doctrine of the two sects. See the discussion of this
point in M, p. 180, n. 2; Ilarino da Milano, “II ‘Liber supra Stella,”’ Aevum,
XVI (1942), 304-6; and Delaruelle, “Le Catharisme en Languedoc,” Annales
du Midi, LXII (1960), 152.
6. This catalogue of tenets in itself was thought valuable enough to be
reproduced separately by contemporaries, notably in manuals of procedure
for inquisitors. Its appearance in the manuscripts are enumerated in Don¬
daine, “La Hierarchie cathare, I,” AFP, XIX (1949), n. 32. It was published
in Muratori, Antiquitates italicae, V, 93-96, and reprinted by Ricchini in his
Preface to the work of Moneta of Cremona, pp. xxi-xxiii.
7. Their format is much like that of the manuals for preachers which
were the basis for our No. 40.
8. This analysis of the tract differs somewhat from that offered by D,
p. 26; and Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, I,” AFP, XIX (1949), 294 ff.
9. Neither of the editors attempted to fix the date precisely. Among other
entries in the manuscript is a calendar written in a hand comparable to that
of the Brevis summula. A later addition to it is the feast-day of St. Peter
Martyr, canonized in 1253 (D, pp. 22, n. 1; 24); thus some portions of the
manuscript were written before that date. Dondaine (“La Hi6rarchie cathare,
I,” AFP, XIX [1949], 297) dates the treatise after 1250. Thouzellier (Un
Traiti cathare, p. 53) calls it the work of a Franciscan inquisitor and dates
it about 1270-1285.
10. Cant. 2:15.
750 Notes to Number 53

11. Instinctu D; instituto M.

12. Leo D; Boetius? M. We have not identified the source of the following
quotation.
13. Revertantur M; evertantur D.
14. Acts 27:31.
15. II Pet. 2:5.
16. Luke 5:3.
17. James 5:20.
18. Quoted in Corpus iuris canonici, Decretales Gregorii IX, Lib. V.
Tit. 7. cap. 3, ed. by Friedberg, II, 778, where the editor identifies the words
not as Augustine’s but as a passage from the De fide ad Petrum diaconum
of Fulgentius (468-533), bishop of Ruspa.
19. Decretales Gregorii IX, as cited in the preceding note.
20. Ibid., cap. 1, quoting Pope Stephen. Extravagantes is a name given
to the compilation of decretals published by Gregory IX in 1234.
21. Ibid., cap. 2, quoting Pope Leo I.
22. See the introduction and n. 5, above.
23. Douais’s difficulty with the following two or three sentences in the
manuscript left several lacunae in his edition. We have supplied this passage
from Dollinger’s publication of another manuscript which contains what
seems to be the same myth (Beitrage, II, 612-13); on it see Dondaine, “La
Hierarchy cathare, I,” AFP, XIX (1949), 299, n. 38.
24. Apoc. 11:15.
25. At this point we resume translation from Douais’s text.
26. Matt. 15:24.
27. This theory of triple inspiration of the prophets is put rather more
clearly in other contemporary sources; see, for example. No. 54, § 3.
28. Matt. 15:24.
29. There is a lacuna of several lines in the published text because the
manuscript is illegible.
30. Reading erit for citra of the printed text here and in the next para¬
graph.
31. The words in brackets were supplied by Douais.
32. Decime here but in comparable passage in the following catalogue
of errors elemosine (alms).
33. Reading ablata for oblata of the text, as does Molinier in a com¬
parable passage in the following catalogue of tenets.
34. Peccatum non est abbutere arbitrio, but in the following catalogue of
tenets the comparable phrase is a libero arbitrio and we have so construed
it here.
35. In one manuscript of the Contra haereticos of Ermengaud of Beziers
(see item xiv in the Appendix), the author, citing I John 4:20, reproaches
the Cathars for teaching their followers to love only their brothers in heresy,
which doctrine, he declares, is reprehensible, because every man is a brother
neighbor in the Catholic faith; see Thouzellier, Catharisme et valde
isme, p. 281.
Notes to Number 54 751
36. Perhaps a reference to II Cor. 4:16, “Though our outward man is
corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”
37. The translation of the sentence is conjectural. The text reads: Contra
hereticos qui dicunt quod non est iustitia; credentes vero dicunt quod
occidendo potest fieri iustitia.
38. The text reads “of Solomon”; the reference is to Ecclus. 42:25.
39. Reading praeter hoc for the propter hoc of the text. Cf. the diversity
of views among the Bagnolenses on the following point, as explained in
No. 23, § 2b.
40. Molinier resumed transcription of the manuscript with this heading.
When Molinier and Douais do not agree and internal evidence throws no
light on the correct reading, we have consulted the version published by
Ricchini (see n. 6, above).
41. Vetus testamentum D; veritatem M.
42. Molinier has A et pars illorum de B> with which Ricchini agrees
(p. xxii); Douais gives only B.
43. Douais omits C, but it is given in Molinier and Ricchini.
44. Douais reads Quod aliud est opus; Molinier supplies non, as does
Ricchini.
45. Molinier omits this tenet. It is given by Ricchini.
46. Douais omits B, but is is given by Molinier and Ricchini.

54. AN INQUISITOR’S NOTEBOOK,

BY ANSELM OF ALESSANDRIA

1. Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX (1950), 238-49,

262.
2. Those omitted deal with the interrogation of heretics and the formal
processes and powers of the inquisition, and include a slightly revised copy
of Isidore of Seville’s list of ancient heresies.
3. Cf. § 19, below, where he is called Hubert Manderius.
4. He is not otherwise known.
5. Dondaine (“La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 243, 286-
87) identifies him as John of Lugio. Borst (p. 237, n. 17) disagrees.
6. De Gona here, but he is named as Bonaventura of Verona in § 19,
below, and as Bonaventura della Torre of Verona in records of the In¬
quisition (Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 287).
7. Andrea: He is not otherwise known.
8. His name is given in inquisitorial records as Johannes de Casalolto
(Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 296; Borst,
p. 237, n. 24).
9. Dondaine (“La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 258)
identifies him as a heretical bishop of Toulouse who fled to Italy in 1250.
See also Borst, p. 233. This sentence appears in the text as the first of the
752 Notes to Number 54
following paragraph but seems clearly to belong with the list of bishops.
10. The schism promoted by Desiderius should be dated about 1230 or
a little later (Borst, pp. 12, 122, 162, 165). Moneta of Cremona, who wrote
about 1241-1244 (see No. 50), also mentions Desiderius. In enumerating
the ideas of mitigated dualists, Moneta says (.Summa, ed. by Ricchini, pp.
247-48) that they insisted that Christ had a spiritual body and suffered no
ailments or weaknesses of the flesh, although He pretended to do so.
Desiderius is cited as agreeing with this although he had sometimes preached
and written to the contrary (ibid., p. 248). This would imply that the schism
had been healed by 1241. Moneta elsewhere (ibid., p. 347) quotes Desiderius
as denying the resurrection of the body. Thomas Aquinas also knew the
work of Desiderius. Desiderius was buried with Nazarius, but the bones of
both were exhumed and burned by inquisitors (Dondaine, “La Hierarchie
cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 292).
11. We follow the tenses of the text, although at the time that Anselm
was writing, Nazarius had been dead for thirty years.
12. This is the apocryphal work translated under the title The Secret
Supper in No. 56, part B. It is also known as Secretum hereticorum [the
secret of the heretics] and lnterrogatio Johannis [the questions of John].
See also § 13.
13. Matt. 24:28.
14. Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:23.
15. Matt. 27:52.
16. These views of Nazarius reflect the influence of the apocryphal Secret
Supper.
17. Cf. the belief reported in No. 55, III, 1, that there is a spiritual
marriage of the soul to God when one is perfected as a heretic.
18. Lanfrancinus de Vaure: He is not otherwise known.
19. John 10:16.
20. Cf. Matt. 18:26.
21. This is the most complete description of the consolamentum known
from a Catholic source. For a discussion of acts and phrases see the intro¬
duction to No. 57.
22. John 1:1 ff.
23. Matt. 11:29. This verse is not mentioned in other descriptions of the
ceremony or in the rituals themselves.
24. Sixteen repetitions of the Lord’s Prayer, with genuflections; see the
introduction to No. 57.
25. Although the need to be reconsoied after such sin is not stated here,
it is implied by mention in the two following contingencies; cf. Dondaine,
“La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX (1950), 247, n. 25.
26. Cf. No. 55, I, 2, and n. 4. See also Borst, p. 184, n. 18, on com¬
parable orthodox usages. It will be recalled that meat, milk, eggs, and cheese
were forbidden to the Cathars at all times.
27. June 29.
Notes to Number 54 753

28. November 24.

29. The text has De tempore, to which Dondaine adds manducationis.
We have added further words because the prayers described here were
repeated not only at meals but at many other times.
30. Ancianus: The word designates the chief person in a group of heretics
living together or one who presides at ceremonies (see the rituals in No. 57).
In Italian civic life, ancianus was applied to a leading citizen (Du Cange,
s.v. “ancianus,” 1). The status of the elder was determined by seniority
as a heretic, as is shown by a phrase in Dollinger, Beitrage, II, 39: antiquior
in haeresi sive qui primus fuit haereticatus.
31. What follows is a description of the act of melioramentum, on which
see the introduction to No. 57.
32. Faciamus aliud.
33. Bessea trona! Possumus facere de nostro melioramento? We are unable
to cast any light on the significance of the first two words; even the reading
of the first word as trona (according to the editor) is uncertain.
34. In the work of an anonymous German inquisitor of the thirteenth
century, who copied with considerable additions the work of Rainerius
Sacconi, heretics are said to have met secretly, “and when they have come
together, first they say, ‘Beware lest there be a curved stick (curvum lignum)
among us,* meaning any stranger” (Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum,
XXV, 264).
35. Scampet te.
36. Cf. No. 55, I, 5
37. At this point the summa of Rainerius Sacconi was copied into the
text of the manuscript, interrupting this paragraph. Dondaine*s explanation
of this oddity is that Rainerius’s summa was a separate manuscript thrust
between the folios of Anselm’s work. A methodical, if not very alert scribe,
on copying the latter, copied the summa in just the place he found it (Don¬
daine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP, XX [1950], 229).
38. Ps. 1132 (A.V. 115):4.
39. Est sandaliat us et portat clericatam super subtellaribus. The editor
(p. 318, n. 2) cites the comparable statement of Evrard of Bethune: “They
tonsure their shoes but not their heads.”
40. The supposed Donation of Constantine.
41. Villelmus albigensis: he is not otherwise known.
42. Cf. No. 45, part B. The epithet “the Good” does not appear in other
sources which give his name.
43. This phrase perhaps applies only to the immediately preceding item.
It seems to indicate that at the moment the author regarded his tract as
finished.
44. Section 11, which we omit, is the summa of Rainerius Sacconi; see
n. 37, above.
45. Neither of the persons mentioned is otherwise known.
46. A pilgrimage or crusade to the Holy Land.
754 Notes to Number 54
47. The quoted words are the opening and closing phrases of the work;
see No. 56, part B.
48. Section 14, which we omit, is a fragment of the interrogation of a
heretic. It is dated 1266.
49. The three paragraphs which make up this passage are known from
other sources; see item xxix (b) in the Appendix. The third of them is also
in No. 55, II, 4. Anselm’s change in terminology (“Poor of Lyons” and
“Poor Lombards” here; “U1 tramontanes” and “Lombards” in other passages)
indicates that he copied this section from another source.
50. Pope Linus (67?-76?); Pope Clement I (88?-97?).
51 Sections 16 and 17, which are omitted, deal with inquisitorial processes
and the powers of the inquisitor, respectively. Section 17 is of some interest
because of the possibility that Bernard Gui, who included it in the fourth
book of his manual, drew it from Anselm. Section 18, also omitted, is a list
of heresies. The only sects named in it which fall within our area of interest
are Cathars, Waldenses, Speronists, Circumcisers, and Arnoldists.
52. In the following list, the only individual surely known from other
sources is Bonaventura of Verona (see n. 6, above). Henry of Arezzo may
be the bishop named in a cryptic record of consolamentum which was
written in the margin of the manuscript containing The Book of the Two
Principles (see the introduction to No. 59). Borst (pp. 236-37) estimates
that this list was drawn up about 1275.

55. BERNARD GUI’S DESCRIPTION OF HERESIES

1. This biographical sketch is based on the remarks of Mollat in his In¬

troduction (I, vi-vii). His work will hereafter be cited as M. On Gui’s liter¬
ary activity, see Antoine Thomas, “Bernard Gui, frfcre precheur,” Histoire
litteraire de la France, XXXV (1921), 139-232. Thomas groups Gui’s works
under ten categories: theology, liturgy, hagiography, history of the Church
councils, history of the popes, history of the emperors, history of the French
kings and the geography of Gaul, history of the Dominicans, history of the
Inquisition, and local history.
2. These are the solemn ceremonies, the “acts of faith,” in which those
adjudged guilty of heresy received sentence or, in the case of the ultimate
penalty, were relaxed to the secular authorities for sentence and execution.
3. It may come as a surprise to some to learn that of the total number
only forty-two were turned over to the secular arm to be executed. Three
others, who had fled, were to be executed if apprehended. Douais (Docu¬
ments, I, ccv) publishes a table indicating the penalties assigned. The largest
group of sentences, numbering 307, were to imprisonment.
4. M, I, xi-xv. It was intended for the guidance of inquisitors in the
general area around Toulouse, Carcassonne, and Albi (M, I, vii-viii).
5. M, I, xvi-xvii.
6. Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 114-15;
Notes to Number 55 (Preface and Chapter I) 755
correcting the date given by M (I, xviii) as 1267-1273. Dondaine analyzes
the source briefly, pp. 113-14.
7. M, I, xviii; Dondaine, “Le Manuel de 1’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII
(1947), 116-17. See also Dondaine, “La Hierarchie cathare, II-III,” AFP,
XX (1950), 250-52, on the theory that Gui knew and used the work of
Anselm of Alessandria (No. 54).
8. This is the name Bernard Gui used to refer to a group which called
themselves “Apostles” (apostoli, apostolici).
9. M, I, xix.
10. M, I, xxii-xxiii. On the De inquisitione hereticorum, the two forms
in which it appears in the manuscripts and printed editions, and the validity
of the ascription to David of Augsburg, see Dondaine, “Le Manuel de
rinquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 104-5, 180-83.
11. M, I, xxiii. Karl Muller, Die Waldenser, pp. 157-59.
12. Gui’s separate report on the pseudo-Apostles is published (with
French translation) in M, II, Appendix I.
13. See chap. V, nn. 2, 3.
14. “Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 117.
15. There is a difference in the two editions. Some of the extant manu¬
scripts of the Practica include in a section at the end additional formulas,
important papal bulls, and the work on the pseudo-Apostles referred to in
n. 12, above. Douais adds this material as chap. VIII of the fifth part of the
Practica. Mollat places it in two appendices (II, 66-153). See his Introduc¬
tion, I, ix-xi,
16. We omit §§ 9 and 10 of chap. IV, containing formulas for excom¬
munication; the formulas for abjuration of various sects (chap. VII); and
the material printed by M as appendices.

PREFACE AND CHAPTER I

1. In the manuscripts and in the edition of the work by Douais, this
preceding paragraph constitutes the full title of Part V. It appears in M
only as a footnote, but it seems of sufficient interest here to include it in
the translation as part of the prefatory remarks.
2. Various degrees of complicity in heresy were recognized by the In¬
quisition. In the consultation of Raymond of Pennafort alluded to in an
earlier place (No. 38, n. 17), “heretics” (haeretici) are those who persist in
their error, and “believers” (credentes) are held to be the same as heretics
in judicial proceedings. One might be “suspect” of heresy in varying de¬
grees: “merely” (simpliciter), “seriously” (vehementer), or “most seriously”
(vehementissime). Those who assist heretics are also differentiated according
to the seriousness of their involvement with them. Bernard Gui also dis¬
cussed such distinctions in the fourth part of his Practica (ed. by Douais,
pp, 218-32).
3. Death did not end the possibility of prosecution as a heretic. See an
early instance of this in No. 3 (p. 75); another is referred to in No. 54, n. 10.
756 Notes to Number 55 (Preface and Chapter 1)
4. Cf. the testimony before the Inquisition in the fourteenth century
printed in Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 246, which gives slightly different dates
for the fasts and suggests that dispensations were allowed for those who
were working. See also No. 54, § 7.
5. See No. 38, § 15, for the case a century earlier, of a heretic who was
consoled although he was too ill to repeat the Lord's Prayer. A striking
illustration of the covenensa and perhaps among the earliest occasions for
its use was the agreement between I heretical partisans besieged at Monts6gur
in 1243-1244 and the heretical bishop, Bernard Marty, by which agreement
he promised to console them even if they \were beyond the power of speech
(Guiraud, Histoire de VInquisition, I, 137; Dossat, “L’Evolution des rituels
cathares,” Revue de synthise, XXIII [1948], 28-29).
6. John 1:1-14.
7. Cf. Matt. 23:3.
8. See the works cited in nn. 31-35 of the Introduction.

CHAPTER II
1. Cant. 3:2.
2. Acts 5:29.
3. Mark 16:15.
4. Gui has here followed Stephen of Bourbon (No. 33) very closely.
5. Insabbatati.
6. Matt. 5:34 and Jas. 5:12.
7. Corpus iuris canonici Lib. V. Tit. 7 (De haereticis). Cap. 13, § 7:
Friedberg, II, 788-89. For superstitione [superstition] Friedberg and Mansi
(Concilia, XXII, cols. 989-90) read obstinatione, Friedberg giving super-
stitione as a variant reading in two manuscripts.
8. Matt. 7:1 and 5:21, respectively.
9. Cf. the discussion of a century earlier on these points in No. 46.
10. In his third book, Bernard Gui had entered a passage on the orders
among the Waldenses which was based on a confession before the Inquisi¬
tion at Pamiers (Practica, ed. by Douais, pp. 136-38). It is printed in
Appendix II of M, II, 148-52. According to it, all three orders were elective
and were ordained by the imposition of hands and the Lord’s Prayer.
Bishops and priests could hear confessions, but only the former had the
power, rarely used, to remit some or all of the penalty for sin. Bishops
consecrated the Eucharist, granted the power to priests to preach. Deacons
provided for the material wants of priests and bishops but could not hear
confessions. Only those ordained as deacons or in the higher ranks were
called “the Perfect”; the term for all others was “believers,” or “friends.”
See also the confession published in Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 97-143.
11. This accusation of obscene and lascivious behavior by the heretics is
quite uncharacteristic of Bernard Gui. In the work attributed to David of
Augsburg (De inquisitione hereticorum, ed. by Preger, in “Der Traktat des
David von Augsburg,” Abhandlungen der historischen Classe der koniglich
Notes to Number 55 (Chapter II) 757
bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XIV [1878], 210-11), which
Bernard Gui had before him as he wrote, doubt of the truth of such stories
is expressed.
12. Majoralis: The highest office among the Waldenses. The Waldensian
hierarchy was discussed before Bernard Gui and others by two witnesses
who testified that they had learned their doctrines from one John of Lor¬
raine, majoralis of their sect, who, although not an ordained priest, could
celebrate Mass, and to whom they owed “greater obedience than to the lord
pope” (Liber sententiarum, pp. 289-92). Further details on the Waldensian
hierarchy are found in other confessions printed in Dollinger, Beitrdge, II,
97-144, and in a little tract (De pauperibus de Lugduno [on the Poor of
Lyons], ibid., II, 92-97). In the passage in Book III of the Practica cited in
n. 10, above, major is used with reference to a bishop (episcopus autem
eorum major omnium appellatur). Cf. § 5 below.
13. I Cor. 7:9.
14. Benedicite, Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison, Pater noster.
15. See Matt. 14:17-21.
16. Apoc. 7:12.
17. Cf. Matt. 10:23.
18. See n. 10, above. Although Bernard Gui does not make it clear here,
the other “rank” comprises the believers and friends.
19. Wisd. 1:11.
20. Cf. Matt. 7:12 and 19:17, respectively.
21. Matt. 5:34-37; w. 35 and 36 are somewhat modified by the author.
22. An anonymous inquisitor in the diocese of Passau remarked: “I saw
and heard an illiterate countryman who recited Job word for word, and I
saw and heard several others who knew the whole of the New Testament
perfectly” (W. Preger, “Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldesier,” in Abhand-
lungen der historischen Classe der koniglich bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, XIII [1875], 226n). Stephen of Bourbon also encountered
a Waldensian preacher who knew the whole of the New Testament and
most of the Old by heart (Lecoy de la Marche, Anecdotes historiques,
p. 280).
23. The text reads: et propter hoc non evades. Gui is here following
David of Augsburg, whose words are more explicit: non evades sententiam
mortis (M, I, xxiii).
24. Here the author is copying the words of his source and not recount¬
ing his own experience (M, I, 70n).
I, 70n).
25. Cf. I Kings (A.V. I Sam.) 21:12-15.
26. Here Bernard Gui seems to be independent of his sources, remarking
on his own observations.
27. This and the reference to the Eucharist in the following paragraph
are in accord with the prescription in canon 22 of the decrees of the Fourth
Lateran Council (1215), to the effect that confession and Communion must
 758 Notes to Number 55 (Chapter II)
be observed at least once a year, at Easter, in one's own church and under
the ministration of one’s own priest (Mansi, Concilia, XXII, 1007). That
such a rule would be helpful in hunting down heretics can easily be
understood.
28. Inter perfectos credentes suos. Cf. M, I, 81.

chapter in
1. On the pseudo-Apostles, the best short treatment is by J. M. Vidal in
“Apostoliques,” Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastique, III,
1038-48; an adequate discussion in English may be found in Lea, History of
the Inquisition, III, 103-24. Somewhat longer accounts are Felice Tocco,
“Gli apostolici e fra Dolcino,” Archivio storico Italiano, 5th ser., XIX
(1897), 241-75; Gioacchino Volpe, Movimenti religiosi e sette ereticali nella
societa medievale italiana, 2d ed.; Amaldo Segarizzi, in the Preface (pp.
vii-1) to his edition of works on the pseudo-Apostles published in Muratori,
Rerum Italicarum scrip tores, new ed., Vol. IX, pt. 5 (1907); and Cesare
Violini, Fra Dolcino e la setta degli apostolici A recent detailed study on
Dolcino and the pseudo-Apostles is E. Anagnine, Dolcino e il movimento
ereticale alVinizio del trecento (Florence, 1964). The principal sources
include the Chronicle of Salimbene, ed. by Oswald Holder-Egger in MGH
SS, Vol. XXXII, pt. 1, pp. 255-94, 489, 563, 619-20, and more recently by
Ferdinando Bernini in two volumes (Bari, 1942). An English paraphrase of
Salimbene’s work is in G. G. Coulton, From St. Francis to Dante. Other
sources are printed in the work of Segarizzi just cited; for criticism of that
edition, see Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947),
94, n. 27.
2. Segarelli, an unlettered peasant with little gift for leadership, was at
first tolerated by Church leaders but was finally recognized as dangerous,
haled before the Inquisition, and burned by the secular arm on July 18,
1300. Dolcino was a man of a different stripe. He had some education, a
certain magnetism, and much determination. After the execution of Sega¬
relli, he assumed direction of the group in northern Italy and offered armed
resistance to ecclesiastical and secular authority, which declared a crusade
against him. He met a fearful death on July 1, 1307. A fourteenth-century
inquisitorial manual maligns him by saying that he confessed that he taught,
not because he believed what he said but out of vainglory and because he
thus won many advantages, temporal delights, and prestige; see Dondaine,
“Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 118, n. 6. Margarita is
pictured as a woman of singular beauty, noble blood, and much wealth.
We are told that she was offered freedom and a suitable husband if she
would abjure heresy. She chose death at the stake. The treatise here referred
to by Gui was included by him at the end of his work (Douais, pp. 327-55;
Mollat, II, 66-120) and is also published, as noted above in n. 1, by Segarizzi.
For the present discussion our author borrows freely from this work, but it
has not seemed necessary here to indicate specific passages.
Notes to Number 55 (Chapter IV) 759

3. Apoc. 17:5.
4. As pointed out in M, p. 89, n. 1, the beliefs to which Gui here refers
are those of Dolcino, not Segarelli. The latter seems to have had no system.
5. Pope Celestine V (July 5-December 13, 1294), a saintly recluse who
was chosen by acclaim by the cardinals after a two-year vacancy in the See.
He accepted the election with great hesitation, showed himself quite in¬
capable of meeting the demands of the office, and resigned after five
months. As here indicated, he won the warm approval of those who em¬
phasized the strict rule of absolute poverty.
6. Matt. 4:17.
7. Matt 10:16.
8. John 14:27.
9. Since the heresy of the pseudo-Apostles was found chiefly in northern
Italy, Gui would have a natural interest in learning why any of them came
to southern France. The register of his sentences lists only one of the sect
who appeared before him (pp. 338-39, 360-63), and he had come from the
Spanish province of Galicia, south of the Pyrenees; see M, I, 99n.
10. Cf. Matt. 16:18-19.
11. See chap. I, n. 2, above. A good illustration of the treatment of such
a suspect is the case of Peter of Lugo, the individual alluded to in n. 9
above and in Bernard Gui’s concluding paragraph in this section. He was
held in prison for some two years, until finally a confession was drawn
from him and he abjured his heresy.
12. The allusion is probably to the execution of Dolcino and some few
of his followers after their overthrow and capture on Monte Rebello, and
immediately thereafter (cf. M
Most of those who remained faithful to him to the end seem to have been
killed either by cold and famine or by the crusaders who were sent out to
destroy them.
13. See n. 9, above.

CHAPTER IV
1. The diocese of Toulouse was in 1317 raised by Pope John XXII to a
province, with Raymond of Comminges as its first archbishop.
2. In 1317 Pope John XXII issued two bulls affecting the dissident groups
in the Franciscan order: Quorundam exigit on October 7 and Sancta romana
on December 30. The first ordered the abandonment of the short, skimpy
habits the Spirituals affected, and held it to be lawful, under the rule of
St. Francis, for the brothers to store up food for future use. The second
ordered the Fraticelli and the Beguins to conform or to suffer excommuni¬
cation. On the basis of these pronouncements there began a vigorous perse¬
cution of these factions. See J. M. Vidal, Bullaire de VInquisition frangaise
(Paris, 1913), pp. lii-liv; Lea, History of the Inquisition, III, 75-79; and
Decima L. Douie, The Nature and Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli,
pp. 16-21.
760 Notes to Number 55 (Chapter IV)

3. They were Peter Dominici from Narbonne, Peter Hospitalis from

Montpellier, and Peter Giraudi from Beziers. The Liber sente ntiarum, pp.
383-95, records that they were sentenced as relapsed heretics. They were
foreigners (alienigene) only in having come from outside the province of
Toulouse. They were burned September 22, 1322.
4. Peter John Olivi was a leader of the Spiritual Franciscans; he spent
most of his life in Languedoc. Trained at the University of Paris, he was
active in teaching and writing. Early in his career he fell into disfavor with
the Conventuals, the dominant faction in his order, for advocating the prin¬
ciple of absolute poverty. During the last fifteen years of his life (he died
in 1298), he was under the necessity of defending himself against their
criticism, but it was not until 1319 that the reading of his works was
officially forbidden to the friars by the minister-general, Michael of Cesena.
Peter’s commentary on the Apocalypse was specifically condemned by
Pope John XXII in 1326. Though himself loyal to the Church and greatly
wounded by the charge of heresy brought against him by his critics, Peter
was much revered by the heretical faction of the Beguins. Accounts in
English of his life and works may be found in Huber, Documentary History
of the Franciscan Order (Milwaukee and Washington, 1944), pp. 191-213;
Douie, Fraticelli, pp. 81-119; and Carter Partee, “Peter John Olivi,” Fran¬
ciscan Studies, XX (1960), 215-60. The basic study is Franz Ehrle, “Petrus
Johannes Olivi,” ALKG, III (1887), 409-552. See also Raoul Manselli, La
4,Lectura super Apocalipsim” di Pietro di Giovanni Olivi, and the same
author’s Spirituali e Beghini in Provenza.
5. Postilla: a term employed since the early thirteenth century to refer to
commentaries written as a continuous gloss on the sacred text. See Beryl
Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, pp. 270-71.
6. In a “letter of seven seals” this commission condemned articles drawn
from the commentary of Peter John Olivi. The condemnation is published
in Stephen Baluze, Miscellanea, ed. by Mansi, II, 258-70. Subsequent studies
have done much to modify the adverse contemporary judgment of Olivi and
his work; see Douie, Fraticelli, p. 94; and Partee, “Peter John Olivi,” Fran¬
ciscan Studies, XX (1960), 215-60, passim.
7. Probably the work cited by Ehrle in “Petrus Johannes Olivi,” ALKG,
III (1887), 476; see also Histoire litteraire de la France, XIX, 307-16.
8. Contra Faustum xix.xi (Migne, PL, XLII, 355).
9. This is the point upon which they came into most serious dispute with
authority, and it was the chief ground upon which John XXII condemned
them. See Douie, Fraticelli, pp. 8-10, 96-102, 153-208, for a brief discus¬
sion of the problem. See also Felice Tocco, La questione della poverty nel
secolo XIV; Noel Valois’s article on Pope John XXII in Histoire litteraire
de la France, XXXIV, 426-72; and M, I,118n.
10. The usus pauper, or frugal consumption of goods, represented the
extreme position of the Spiritual Franciscans in opposition to the Con¬
ventuals. In this the Spirituals received support from St. Bonaventure,
Notes to Number 55 (Chapter IV) 761
general of the order (1257-1274), and from Pope Nicholas III in the bull
Exiit qui seminat, promulgated in 1279. But in raising evangelical poverty
to a dogma, belief in which was necessary to salvation, the Spirituals and
those Beguins who agreed with them went further than the Church was
willing to go. Peter John Olivi wrote two influential tracts on the subject,
discussed and published in part by Ehrle in ALKG, III (1887), 506-17. See
also the references in the preceding note.
11. The notion of the “sixth era” is from the apocalyptic teaching of
Peter John Olivi, who drew many of his ideas from Abbot Joachim of Flora
(on whom see No. 44, n. 10). Olivi divided the history of the world into
three ages: (1) the age of the Father, or of the Old Testament; (2) that of
the Son, from the birth of Christ until about 1300; (3) that of the Holy
Spirit, which was to be ushered in by the return of Christ, the overthrow of
the mystical Antichrist (whom the Beguins identified with the pope) and the
real Antichrist (possibly a descendant of Emperor Frederick II), and the
completion of the work of the apostles by the Spiritual Franciscans. The
second age, that of the Son, Olivi believed was divided into seven eras, the
sixth of which commenced with the founding of the Franciscan order. The
seventh he prophesied would be the time of cataclysm in preparation for
the coming of the third age, that of the Holy Spirit. See Douie, Fraticelli,
pp. 6-10, 251-57, for a brief discussion; J. M. Vidal, “Proces d’inquisition
contre Adh6mar de Masset,” Revue d’histoire de VEglise de France, I
(1910), 561-66; and Manselli, La t4Lectura super Apocalipsim.,i For an
illustration of how the ideas of Olivi were distorted by some of his fol¬
lowers, see the record of the trial of Na Prous Boneta, published with a
brief introduction by William H. May, “The Confession of Prous Boneta,
Heretic and Heresiarch,” Essays in Medieval Life and Thought (New York,
1955), pp. 3-30.
12. “A vow is solemn if it is acknowledged as such by the Church; other¬
wise it is simple” (John A. Abbo and Jerome D. Hannan, The Sacred
Canons: A Concise Presentation of the Current Disciplinary Norms of the
Church [2 vols., St. Louis and London, 1952], II, 550 [col. 1308, art. 2]).
13. Issued October 7, 1317; see n. 2, above. The bull may be found in
Corpus iuris canonicL Extravagantes Joannis. Tit. XIV. cap. 1 (Quorundam
exigit): Friedberg, II, 1220-24.
14. This statement, together with much else that appears in the descrip¬
tion of beliefs and practices of the Beguins, finds corroboration in the few
pages of Gui’s sentences devoted to them (Liber sententiarum, pp. 381-94).
See especially the testimony of Peter Giraudi (p. 390), concerning the vener¬
ation of the bones and ashes of executed Spirituals and Beguins, who were
looked upon as saints and martyrs.
15. Peter Dominici, in his testimony before the Inquisition, asserted that
if John the Evangelist is in paradise, Peter John Olivi is also; though he did
accord to the Evangelist the greater glory. And he went on to affirm that
the beliefs and writings of Olivi were true no matter if the pope condemned
762 Notes to Number 55 (Chapter IV)

them “under a thousand bulls” or if they were condemned by a council of

cardinals and all the prelates (Liber sententiarum, p. 384). The Council of
Vienne had in 1312 condemned three of Olivi’s propositions, notably his
assertion that Christ was alive when His side was pierced by the lance (M,
I, 139n).
16. John 19:33-34.
17. Apoc. 10:1-2. The assertion that such a belief was held by some
persons was made by the Franciscan community in its efforts to discredit
the Spirituals and to curb Olivi’s influence (Partee, “Peter John Olivi,”
Franciscan Studies, XX [1960], 231).
18. Presumably this is a reference to the condemnation of Olivi’s writings
by the chapter-general of the order, held at Marseilles in the spring of
1319 (M, I, 141, n. 1).
19. For a description of Olivi’s writings see Douie, Fraticelli, pp. 94-119;
Partee, “Peter John Olivi,” Franciscan Studies, XX (1960), 256-59; Ehrle,
“Petrus Johannes Olivi,” ALKG, III (1887), 459-533; and Manselli, La
t4Lectura super Apocalipsim” chaps. IV and V. For a brief discussion of
their influence on the Beguins of southern France, see Douie, Fraticelli,
pp. 252-53. In testimony before Bernard Gui, Bernard de na Jacma re¬
ported that he possessed many books of the Beguins written in the vernacu¬
lar (.Liber sententiarum, p. 309).
20. Apoc. 17:1-6.
21. The reference is to Frederick II of Sicily, by the treaty of Caltabel-
latta (1302) titled “king of Trinacria.” He was the third son of Peter III of
Aragon and Sicily and became regent of the island in 1291 at the age of
nineteen. His rule was a troubled one; he had to cope with the opposition
of the Angevin claimants to the throne, first Charles II, then his son,
Robert, who were aided by the king of France and the pope. But he man¬
aged to keep his throne and consolidate his power, so that his son Peter
succeeded him upon his death in 1337. He is of interest in the present
context because he gave asylum for a time to Spiritual Franciscans who fled
from Italy, and also because his name was linked with the apocalyptic be¬
liefs of the extremists. They presumed that one hundred years after the
death of St Francis, Robert and his allies, the ten kings of the Saracens,
would overthrow the existing “carnal” Church and thus usher in the new
era of the Holy Spirit, fulfilling the prophecy in Apoc. 17:12; see Douie,
Fraticelli, pp. 16, 250, 256; and M, I, 145, nn. 1-3.
22. A branch of the Spiritual Franciscans found mostly in southern
Italy. In their tenets they resembled the Beguins of southern France, and
they were, like them, condemned specifically in the bull of John XXII, pro¬
mulgated December 30, 1317. It is interesting to note, however, that they
were one of the Franciscan groups marked by the Beguins for destruction;
see Douie, Fraticelli, pp. 209-47 and passim; Felix Vernet, “Fraticelli,”
DTC, VI, 770-84; and M, I, 147n.
23. I.e., the Beguins.
Notes to Number 55 (Chapter IV) 763
24. I.e., John XXII; see M, I, 149, n. 1.
25. This is an obscure paragraph, upon which some light is thrown by
the eleventh chapter of Olivi’s commentary on the Apocalypse. There, as
one may gather from the report of a commission appointed to examine the
commentary and decide upon passages which might be “heretical, errone¬
ous, or audacious,** Olivi taught that between the time of the mystical Anti¬
christ and the real Antichrist, the Spiritual Franciscans would preach ac¬
tively to all peoples. When they had finished this mission, the beast which
“rose up out of the bottomless pit” (Apoc. 17:8) would make war upon
them, would conquer and slaughter them. These are the saints referred to in
Apoc 7:3-9, in which their number is given as one hundred and forty-four
thousand “marked by the sign of the living God.” Thus it was given to
Antichrist to triumph for a time (Apoc. 13:7-8). But he will finally be over¬
thrown through the teaching of a small band of Spirituals, as recounted
later, and thus the way will be prepared for the second coming of Christ
and the Last Judgment. In our text, therefore, the first reference to Anti¬
christ would seem to be to the mystical Antichrist, the second reference to
the real. The reference to Elijah and Enoch is merely the Beguin version of
a tradition which ran through the Middle Ages in various forms; they are
the two Old Testament figures, the prophet and the patriarch who escaped
death by being caught up into the terrestrial paradise, there to await the
second coming of Christ. Some of Olivi’s followers seem to have believed
that “Enoch” and “Elijah” referred to St Francis and Olivi. For a brief
discussion of the tradition, though without reference to the Spirituals, see
Arturo Graf, Miti, leggende e superstizioni del medio evo, I, 64-66; see also
Manselli, La “Lectura super Apocalipsim” pp. 98-99, 154-59, 180-86. For
the report of the commission which examined the commentary, see Baluze,
Miscellanea, II, 266.
26. For a graphic description of this carnage, see the testimony of
Bernard de na Jacma, in the Liber sententiarum, p. 39.
27. Cf. Ps. 79:14 (A.V. 78:13); see the testimony of Peter Moresii in the
Liber sententiarum, pp. 303-7: “Lord Pope John XXII... whom he calls a
wild boar of the forest” (p. 306).
28. See n. 2 above.
29. Rather, in 1322, when the pope commissioned the bishop of Pamiers,
Jacques Fournier, to proceed against them. The register of the Inquisition
of Jacques Fournier is extant in manuscript (Vatican lat. 4030; published in
part, though defectively, in Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 97-251) and is discussed
by J. M. Vidal, Le Tribunal dTnquisition de Pamiers. We have not seen
the edition of this inquisitorial register by Jean Duvernoy, announced in
1965.
suggestions for specific questioning Gui
Is own experience, as appears from t
sententiarum
31. See n. 25, above. The reference to the sixth and seventh heads of the
764 Notes to Number 55 (Chapter IV)

dragon apparently is an allusion to Apoc. 13:1, which describes a beast with

seven heads. The heads were interpreted as the seven great empires which
successively ruled the world: the first five being the Egyptian, Assyrian,
Chaldean, Persian, and Greek (or Macedonian); the sixth, the Roman, or
as the Beguin would say, the era of papal rule; and the seventh, that of
Antichrist. With the overthrow of Antichrist will end the second era of the
world; and the third era, that of the Holy Spirit, will be inaugurated by the
Last Judgment.
32. Cf. Luke 6:39.
33. Peremptorie: This is a technical term designating procedure designed
to expedite action of the court; see M, I, 181, n. 1.
34. Questionari: This is one of the very few references to the use of
torture in Gui’s work. For another, see the Practica, ed. by Douais, pp.
138-39.
35. Sections 9 and 10 (M, pp. 182-88) have not been translated. They
contain, respectively, a formula for a first sentence and a sentence of
excommunication against one who is contumacious.
36. See § 5.
37. On which, see Ehrle, “Petrus Johannes Olivi,” ALKG, III (1887),
411.
38. The text has 1297 because Bernard Gui used the calendar beginning
the year with the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25).
39. For some years after his death Peter John Olivi was venerated as a
saint by the people and many clergy, but in 1318 the Conventual community
destroyed the tomb and did away with his remains (Partee, “Peter John
Olivi,” Franciscan Studies, XX [1960], 233-34, 239).

CHAPTER V
1. Unless the Jew actively resisted and protested during the ceremony,
the compulsion was not held to be absolute; see Yosef H. Yerushalmi, “The
Inquisition and the Jews of France in the Time of Bernard Gui,” Rutgers
Hebraic Studies, I (1965), 24-25.
2. This paragraph is quoted from the Sixtus of Boniface VIII, Lib. v.
Tit. 2. cap. 13: Contra Christianos (Friedberg, II, 1075). The Inquisition
had been given competence to deal with proselytes and the re-judaized
(converts to Christianity who returned to Judaism) by Clement IV in 1267,
in the bull Turbato corde. That bull was several times reissued before the
end of the century. On the Inquisition and the Jews, see Newman, Jewish
Influence on Christian Reform Movements, which should be used with
some caution, however. We have profited by the friendly advice of Pro¬
fessor Yerushalmi, and on his “The Inquisition and the Jews,” Rutgers
Hebraic Studies, I (1965), 1-60, depends the content of several of the
following notes.
3. Many of the details in the ceremony described here appear in the case
of a relapsed Jew tried by Bernard Gui in Toulouse in 1317 and sentenced
Notes to Number 55 (Chapter V) 765

to life imprisonment; see Liber sententiarum, p. 230. Newman (pp. 385-86)

is skeptical of most of the practices enumerated here; but Yerushalmi (pp.
47-58) concludes that most of them, although not required in Jewish law,
have parallels in other prescriptions and practices, such as those for prose¬
lytes, and that the use of a rite substantially like the one described here is
not improbable.
4. Tymla: for the Hebrew tebilah.
5. Baaltussuna: for the Hebrew baal-seshuba.
6. As noted in M, II, 10, n. 1, this interrogatory is heavily dependent on
one in a thirteenth-century manual of the Inquisition (Paris, Bibl. Mazarine,
MS 2015). Another manual, dated about 1265, with similar interrogatories
is described from Vatican MS lat. 3987 in Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’in-
quisiteur,” AFP, XVII (1947), 141-54, esp. 149. Gui’s list of questions is
also very like one from the archives of the Inquisition at Carcassonne
(<Collection Doat> XXXVII, fols. 262r-263v; printed in Devic and Vaissete,
Histoire de Languedoc, VIII, 987-88). The record of a trial in Pamiers in
1320 of a relapsed Jew whose conversion to Christianity had occurred
under duress has been published by J. M. Vidal, “L’Emeute des Pastoreaux
en 1320,” Annales de St. Louis-des-Frangais9 III (1898-1899), 154-74; Eng¬
lish translation by Solomon Grayzel, “The Confession of a Medieval Jewish
Convert,” Historia Judaica, XVII (1955), 89-120. Yerushalmi (“The In¬
quisition and the Jews,” Rutgers Hebraic Studies, I [1965], 12-17) analyzes
the proceedings.
7. The text reads per quos, which we interpret as repeating the sense of
the previous question as to a godfather.
8. The paragraph on circumcision appears in the short version of the
De inquisitione hereticorum attributed to David of Augsburg (see item xxvii
in the Appendix) and in the Mazarine MS referred to in n. 6, above. The
practice here described is doubless that alluded to in the interrogatory
published in Devic and Vaissete, Histoire de Languedoc, VIII, 987-88, by
the question Quomodo circumciduht Christianos aliter quam suos? Newman
(pp. 263-64, 305) and Yerushalmi (pp. 58-60) are in general agreement that
partial circumcision is otherwise unknown, that it would have been quite
unlikely among medieval Jews, and that this alleged practice may have been
a figment of Christian imagination.
9. This is one of the blessings in the morning service; today, in the
Ashkenazic rite, it is rendered as “hast not made me a heathen.” See Joseph
P. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, rev. ed. (New York, 1955),
p. 19 and note.
10. This is, with certain interpolations, the birkath ha-minim (originally a
prayer against heretics and schismatics), the twelfth of the eighteen bless¬
ings which are recited three times daily. The text was many times revised
over the years. For the modern English text, see Hertz, Daily Prayer Book,
pp. 143-45. See also Yerushalmi, “The Inquisition and the Jews,” Rutgers
Hebraic Studies, I (1965), 41-43.
766 Notes to Number 55 (Chapter V)

11. A version of the Oleynu Prayer, which today closes congregational

services. The sentences referring to those who bow down before vanity,
invoke a powerless God, etc., which Bernard Gui and his fellow Christians
found so offensive, are from a passage deleted in the eighteenth century
from the prayer in the Ashkenazic rite; see Hertz, Daily Prayer Book, pp.
208-9 and note; Yerushalmi, p. 43. For an English translation of the prayer
in the Sephardic rite, see David de Sola Pool, ed. and trans., Prayers for the
Day of Atonement: According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese
Jews, p. 17. The scriptural verse is Exod. 15:18.
12. The word is usually applied to a prayer book which contains the
holiday liturgy.
13. Cematha: A transliteration of shamta, which M, II, 17, incorrectly
identifies as shema, a confession of faith. Shamta is an Aramaic word used
in Jewish legal literature in the sense of curse, ban, or excommunication.
Yerushalmi (pp. 44-47) shows that in twelfth-century France a malediction
in poetic form was sometimes recited in synagogues in the afternoon service
on the Day of Atonement and that anti-Christian prayers were in existence.
He concludes that Bernard Gui’s testimony here is correct.
14. Solomon son of Isaac, that is, Rashi (1040-1105). On him, see Jewish
Encyclopedia, X, 324-28, and particularly with respect to his influence,
Herman Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh, cl965).
15. At the instigation of an apostate Jew who had become a Dominican,
Gregory IX ordered an inquistition of the Talmud and other Jewish books
suspected of containing blasphemous passages. At Paris, in proceedings
begun in 1239, several rabbis defended their books, but unsuccessfully, and
the offending works were condemned and burned in large numbers in 1244.
Similar burnings took place elsewhere in subsequent years. On Jewish-
Christian controversies in the Middle Ages, see Isidore Loeb, “La con-
troverse religieuse entre les Chretiens et les Juifs au moyen age en France
et en Espagne,” Revue de Vhistoire des religions, XVII (1888), 311-37;
XVIII (1888), 133-56; Newman, Jewish Influence, pp. 318-21; and Solomon
Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century (Philadelphia,
1933), 94-98, 239 ff. Bernard Gui himself was active in searching out and
condemning Jewish books in 1310, using formulas under that date which
may in fact have originated much earlier. Again, in 1319, he supervised the
burning of two wagonloads of copies of the Talmud. The sentence con¬
demning the books in 1319 is in Liber sententiarum, pp. 273-74. See also
Grayzel, The Church and the Jews, pp. 341-43; and Yerushalmi, pp. 7-10.
16. Moses son of Maimon, better known as Maimonides (1135-1204),
author of commentaries on Jewish law and on the Torah and of other theo¬
logical works, notably The Guide of the Perplexed (trans. by Shlomo Pines
[Chicago, 1963]), all of which attained international renown. The work to
which Bernard Gui here refers is his Mishnah Torah, the code of Jewish
law, of which an English translation is in progress in the Yale Judaica
series. There is a recent short biography: Solomon Zeitlin, Maimonides: A
Biography, 2d ed. (New York, 1955).
Notes to Number 56 (Introduction) 767

17. This was Rabbi David Kimhi, also known as RaDaK (1160-1235),
a Provencal grammarian and exegete, whose commentaries, such as that on
the Psalms, contain sharp polemical passages. See Yerushalmi, “The In¬
quisition and the Jews,” Rutgers Hebraic Studies, I (1965), 37, and n. 85;
and Newman, Jewish Influence, pp. 326-39.

CHAPTER VI
1. On witchcraft and sorcery, see the works cited in No. 42. Neither the
distinction between mere practice of occult arts and actual worship of the
devil nor the competence of inquisitorial courts in cases involving the
former had been clearly established when Bernard Gui wrote. In 1320 Pope
John XXII conferred upon the Inquisition jurisdiction over cases of sorcery,
although he rescinded that grant of power in 1330. The Liber sententiarum
does not disclose any sentences by Bernard Gui for sorcery, but he did in¬
clude in the Practica (part III, ed. by Douais, pp. 150-55, 156-59) three
formulas for degrading and sentencing clerics who were guilty of dabbling
in magic; and six cases involving sorcery were tried at Pamiers in 1321,
shortly before he completed his work. Such cases became more numerous
thereafter; see Lea, History of the Inquisition, III, 452-54; idem, Materials
toward a History of Witchcraft, I, 230 ff. About forty years after Bernard
Gui wrote, another inquisitor, Eymeric, went into more detail in his Direc¬
torium inquisitorum (ed. with commentary by Francis Pegna [Venice, 1609]).
He distinguishes between sorcerers and diviners who were mere soothsayers
and those whose practices “smell’ of heresy (part II, q. lxii, pp. 335-38). In
the following chapter (q. lxiii, pp. 338-51) Eymeric discusses invocations of
the devil, stating that if invocation involves adoration (latria) or coupling
the names of demons with those of saints in prayer (<dulia), it is clearly
heretical. See Lea, Materials toward a History of Witchcraft, I, 205-20, for
other instances of fourteenth-century opinion.
2. The interrogatory which follows is not entirely original with our
author (M, II, 10, n. 1); see also the interrogatory published by Vaissete
and cited in chap. V, n. 6, above.
3. Consecrated materials wrongfully taken from the altar were considered
especially valuable for divination.
4. Using figurines to cast spells on individuals for various purposes is an
ancient practice. In one of the model sentences given earlier by Bernard
Gui, the figurine referred to had been baptized; in another it had not
(Practica, ed. by Douais, pp. 156, 153, respectively).

56. BOGOMIL LITERATURE ADOPTED

BY THE CATHARS

1. The Ascension of Isaiah survives in three Ethiopian manuscripts and

in fragments of Greek and Latin copies. On the origin and date of its com¬
ponent parts, see R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, pp. xi-xiv, and
 Notes to Number 56 (Introduction)

Ren6 Nelli and D6odat Roch6, “La Vision d’lsaie,” Cahiers d’etudes catha¬
res, XXXIII (1958), 19-51, esp. 19-20. We have not seen E. Tisserant,
Ascension dTsa'ie: Traduction de la version ethiopienne ... (Paris, 1909);
nor Jordon Ivanov, Bogomilski knigi i legendi [Bogomil books and legends]
(Sofia, 1925). Their studies were utilized by Nelli and Roche and also by
Turdeneau in the work cited in the following note.
2. Six known manuscripts of The Vision in various European languages
(the earliest is from the twelfth century) reflect a common Slavonic text
prepared in Bulgaria (Slavonic was the official language of Bulgaria after
a.d. 893; thus the manuscripts are called either Slavonic or Bulgarian). The
Latin translation from the Slavonic, first printed in Venice in 1522, came
from a manuscript now lost Emile Turdeneau (“Apocryphes bogomiles et
apocryphes pseudo-bogomiles,” RHR, CXXXVIII [1950], 216-18) shows
how the Bogomils edited The Vision to suit their doctrine. They omitted
passages which put personages of the Old Testament in heaven, those which
referred to the Son of God as Jesus or the Christ, and those which men¬
tioned the Cross as an object of veneration, as well as words which might
be construed as supporting the divine motherhood of Mary.
3. Its influence may have been felt even earlier. A letter of St. Boniface
tells of the vision of a woman in the eighth century who saw a plurality of
heavens (Paul Alphand6ry, “Traces de manicheisme dans le moyen age
latin [VIe-XIIc siicle],” RHPR, IX [1929], 452-53).
4. Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-cathare, pp. 256-57, 288.
5. Summa contra hereticos, ed. by Bazzocchi, p. XCIII; and Adversus
catharos et valdenses, ed. by Ricchini, p. 218, respectively.
6. Dollinger, Beitrage, II, 166-67, 208-10. These are passages of testi¬
mony before the Inquisition in 1321.
7. The Charles edition of The Ascension of Isaiah contains an English
translation of the Ethiopic text on pp. 1-82 and a parallel edition of the
Ethiopic, Greek, and Latin texts on pp. 83-139. The Latin text from which
our translation is made is on pp. 98-139. Another publication of Charles’s
translation appeared in 1917: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
Translations of Early Documents, 1st ser., No. 7: Palestinian and Jewish
Texts {pre-rabbinic).
8. See Turdeneau, “Apocryphes bogomiles,” RHR, CXXXVIII (1950),
207-12; and Borst, pp. 8, 161, for discussion of its origin and citation of
pertinent literature.
9. Nazarius probably went to the Balkans for ordination about 1190
(Borst, pp. 8, 101-2). A note appended to copies of the tract known to
inquisitors recorded his role in obtaining the work and commented that the
tract is “full of errors”—and “full of bad Latin,” Anselm of Alessandria
added on a copy in his possession (see No. 54, § 13). The latter is a com¬
ment we echo after our difficulties with the translation. The influence of
The Secret Supper is discernible among the Albigenses soon after 1220
Notes to Number 56 (Part A ) 769

according to Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, pp. 65-66 and 90-112, passim.

10. See No. 54, § 3.
11. F. Benoist, Histoire des Albigeois et des Vaudois ou Barbets, I
(Paris, 1691), 283-96.
12. Vol. XXXVI, fols. 26v-35r. A copy, apparently of the fifteenth cen¬
tury, also survives in MS 109 of the public library of Dole, fols. 44r-46r
(Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,” AFP, XVII [1947], 94-95, 134-35).
13. Editions are listed in Turdeneau, “Apocryphes bogomiles,” RHR,
CXXXVIII (1950), 204, n. 1; and Dondaine, “Le Manuel de l’inquisiteur,”
AFP, XVII (1947), 134, n. 9.
14. Die Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe. The text, pp. 297-311,
comprises editions of both the Vienna and the Doat version (here designated
as V and D, respectively), together with scholia to V.
15. In Ecritures cathares, pp. 34-66.

A. THE VISION OF ISAIAH

1. The chapters are numbered I-VI here because The Vision as the
Cathars knew it was an independent work. Our chapters are VI-XI of the
composite Ascension of Isaiah.
2. Charles (Ascension, p. 98) prefers to treat these words as a title and
begins v. 1 with “In the twentieth year.”
3. This expectation of prophecy from them, rather than from Isaiah, is
explained in the Ethiopic version (Charles, Ascension, pp. 43-44) as a con¬
sequence of Isaiah’s placing his hands on them. Hereafter, the Ethiopic
version will be referred to as E, with page reference to Charles’s translation.
A Latin translation of a Slavonic versidn, also published by Charles, will
be referred to as S.
4. Perhaps the angel who conducted Isaiah through the heavens; see
chap. II, v. 2. The Latin is less clear than the different reading of E, p. 45:
“and he saw not the men that stood before him.”
5. V. 13 is lacking from the Latin text. It identifies the angel as the one
who was sent to conduct Isaiah.
6. Elevatio accepisset.
7. Quando prophetavi auditum, quern vos vidistis.
8. Post illos cum eis. We amend the last two words, with Charles (/t^-
cension, p. 107, n. 11), to cantabant.
9. I.e., the angel mentioned by the guiding angel in the next phrase.
10. I.e., at the resurrection.
11. Parvum thronum: probably a defect in the translation of the Latin
from the Slavonic or of the Slavonic from the Greek, and should be read
“a throne in the midst,” as in E, p. 52. Cf. S, p. 110.
12. Memoria ... non nominabitur: that is, was not worthy of memorial,
even in a name. Cf. Charles, Ascension, p. 52, note; and see also v. 26.
13. The explanation seems to be that Isaiah was successively transformed
770 Notes to Number 56 (Part A)

into the likeness of the angels of each heaven, just as Christ would be
transformed when He descended through them to earth; see x.9. Nelli (“La
Vision d’Isai’e,” Cahiers d’etudes cathares, XXXIII [1958], 27, n. 18), gives
this explanation, following Tisserant.
14. I.e., the angel of the second heaven.
15. Greater, that is, than the distance from the first to the second heaven
(see v. 18) or the distance from the earth to the firmament, as explained in
E, p. 53.
16. V. 30 is lacking from the Latin. In E (p. 53) and S (p. Ill) it is said
that the glory and the song of the angels on the right were greater than of
those on the left.
17. V. 35 is lacking in the Latin text. In E (pp. 53-54) vv. 34 and 35
repeat the sense of v. 31 as to the greater glory of the angels compared to
their inferiors.
18. Angelum. We correct to angelos with E (p. 54) and S (p. 113).
19. Consiliator. Translated as “companion” in E (p. 54, note), which
Charles explains as the equivalent of “fellow servant” (conservus) of Matt.
18:28,31. Nelli (“La Vision d’Isaie,” p. 28, n. 23), following Tisserant,
finds the analogy to be with conservus as applied to the angel in Apoc.
19:10; 22:9.
20. V. 6 is lacking from the Latin text. In E (p. 55) it poses the question
about the absence of angels on the left which is answered here.
21. We change the punctuation of the Latin text: Dixit mihi: De sexto
coelo, et hie jam thronus non est. Nelli (“La Vision d’Isaie,” p. 28) trans¬
lates: A partir du sixieme del et au-dessus, il riy a plus de trone_For
the distinction of the sixth and seventh heavens from the first five, see also
part B, § 2, in which Satan is able to seduce only angels of the first five
heavens.
22. Dives: Nelli (“La Vision d’Isaie,” p. 28, n. 25) compares this in
meaning with the Provencal ric [powerful], which is in fact the very word
used in a Provencal translation of this verse, in a work discovered after
Nelli wrote; see No. 60, chap. I, n. 30.
23. V. 10, lacking in the Latin text, in E (p. 56) concerns the successive
transformations of the Lord into the likenesses of angels and men—the sub¬
stance of chap. IX, w. 17 ff.
24. Ego magnificavi me... domino, corrected to ego magnificavi meum
dominum, as in S (p. 115).
25. Sexto, corrected to septimo, as in S (p. 115); cf. E (p. 57, n. 14).
26. See Charles, Ascension, p. 57, note, referring to testimony in another
apocryphal treatise that all angels of the sixth heaven were alike in ap¬
pearance.
27. In E (p. 58) these words are addressed by Isaiah to Hezekiah, Joza-
bad, and Micah.
28. Exercitus, corrected to vestes with Charles (Ascension, p. 117, n. 12),
who supposes a corruption in the translation from the Greek.
Notes to Number 56 (Part A) 771
29. V. 8 is lacking in the Latin text In E (p. 60) vv. 7-9 are quite dif¬
ferent, for they describe Adam, “the holy” Abel, and Enoch among the
righteous. The Bogomils held the Old Testament patriarchs to be the devil’s
servants, and this change in the text is one example of their editing The
Vision to suit their doctrines; see Turdeneau, “Apocryphes bogomiles,”
RHR, CXXXVIII (1950), 216-18.
30. Again, this alters the text as found in E (pp. 61-62), by omitting the
words “the Lord, who will be called Christ”; it is another hint of Bogomil
editing, according to Turdeneau (as cited in n. 29).
31. One interested in the fine points of the eschatology of the Ethiopic
version may consult Charles, Ascension, p. 63, notes; and Nelli, “La Vision
d’Isaie,” p. 32, n. 40. Both of them argue the question of which among the
righteous will not receive even their vestments until the day of Christ’s
ascension; this does not seem entirely relevant to Catharist thought, how¬
ever, since the Latin text does not pose such a problem.
32. The reference is to a request Isaiah made in the third heaven: He
asked to be told how events of die world were known in heaven (E, p. 52).
The verse with this request is lacking in the Latin text.
33. Pro humanitate et humilitate: Nelli (“La Vision d’Isaie,” p. 33)
translates this as pour Vhumaniti et pour la bonte (pour la triomphe de la
bonte), with a note that Michael is the protector of humanity.
34. The Latin text omits the phrase “That One who shall be named” and
a reference to those who “believe in His cross,” which are found in E*
p. 65—more evidence of Bogomil editing.
35. Et ille cantabat, corrected to ego can tab am, with Charles, Ascension*
p. 125, n. 12.
36. Et non transfiguravit se in visu illorum. We follow Charles (Ascen¬
sion, p. 125, n. 13) in correcting to transfiguravi me. Charles (Ascension,
p. 67, note) explains: “Isaiah was transformed into the likeness of the angels
and could thereby enjoy certain visions, but he was not transformeu into
the likeness of the righteous, and was on that account excluded from stead¬
fastly beholding the ineffable vision in verse 37, which angels could not
behold but only the righteous, verse 38.” Nelli (“La Vision d’lsaie,” p. 33)
rejects Charles’s correction.
37. Secundo insimul, corrected with Charles (Ascension, p. 127, n. 11)
to duo insimul. The Son and the Holy Spirit are here adoring the Father.
38. In sexto caelo. Charles (Ascension, p. 127, n. 13; p. 128, n. 9) would
correct this to in singulis sex caelis [in each of the six heavens] to corre¬
spond to the Ethiopic version.
39. Vv. 3-4 are lacking in the Latin text. In E (p. 69) they repeat that
Isaiah heard and saw the praise and song, as did the Lord and the Holy
Spirit.
40. The Latin text omits this phrase of E (pp. 69-70): “my Lord Christ,
who will be called Jesus.” See n. 30, above.
41. The Latin text lacks v. 10. In E (p. 70) it repeats the injunction to
 772 Notes to Number 56 (Part A)

the Son to take on the form of the angels of the firmament and hell.
42. Initia. See Charles, Ascension, p. 130, n. 19 (“initium = d£xf| =
‘principality’ ”); and Nelli (“La Vision d’lsaie,” p. 35, n. 51), who suggests
that the Cathars would interpret these to be the spirits of the elements
created by the good God.
43. The six and seventh heavens being of different quality from the first
five, the Lord did not transfigure himself there.
44. V. 24 is lacking in the Latin text. In E (p. 73) it recounts that the
angels guarding the gate of the third heaven demanded the “password/*
which the Lord gave in order not to be recognized.
45. In E (p. 73) Charles translates the Ethiopic equivalent as “password.”
46. Nelli (“La Vision d’lsaie,” p. 36, n. 55), following Tisserant, notes
that because the angels of the air were engaged in constant strife (E, p. 74:
“one was plundering and doing violence to the other”), the Son of God
could pass without their noticing.
47. The Latin text lacks vv. 2-18. In E (pp. 75-78) they recount the story
of Mary and Joseph, both of the family of David. The angel of the Spirit
persuaded Joseph not to abandon Mary when she seemed to be with child r

before their marriage. After two months, Mary was stunned (“astonied” in
Charles’s translation) to see a small babe. Joseph, when his eyes were
opened, saw the infant and praised God. There was much puzzled discus¬
sion of the event by the people in Bethlehem, who were blinded about the
babe. Jesus pretended to be a child to avoid recognition of his true nature,
but later he worked wonders. This passage and w. 20-22, which were also
omitted from the Latin text, are regarded by Turdeneau (“Apocryphes bogo-
miles,” RHR, CXXXVIII [1950], 216-18) as important evidence of Bogomil
revision.
48. The Latin text omits w. 20-22. In E (p. 78) they relate that the
adversary, envying Jesus without knowing who He was, caused His cruci¬
fixion. Jesus descended into hell, rose again after three days, and remained
on earth for some time, sending out His apostles.
49. Ascendisti, corrected to descendisti, following Charles, Ascen¬
sion, p. 135, n. 12, Nelli (“La Vision d’lsaie,” p. 37) makes the same
correction.
50. Gloriae suae conjungebat se. E (p. 80) has “the praise increased,”
which Nelli (“La Vision d’lsaie,” p. 37) also adopts.
51. Cf. I Cor. 2:9.
52. The passage seems corrupt. It probably means: “How many things
will be understood after this book has been read!”
53. E, w. 41-43 (pp. 81-82), adds that because of these prophecies, Satan
caused Isaiah to be sawn asunder. Hezekiah delivered these things to Man-
asseh; but Manasseh did not remember them, and as Satan’s servant he was
destroyed.
54. Another witness told a variant of the same story (Dollinger, Beitrdge,
II, 208-10). He said it was found in a prophecy of Isaiah that when a
heretic was searching in books for answers to his doubts he was visited by
Notes to Number 56 (Part B) 773
an angel and carried to the heavens. The “people” of the first five heavens,
he was told, were spirits, neither good nor evil, waiting the Day of Judg¬
ment. In the seventh heaven he beheld the righteous (heretical) men and
women, who there were all alike. It was explained that differences in their
earthly bodies had been the work of the devil. He adored the Holy Father,
who was Father of the people of Israel, that is, the heretics. God, however,
would not let the heretic address Him as “Father,” because he had doubted.
However, he was assured that subsequently, when he had put off the tunic
of the world, which is the body conceived in uncleanliness, his soul could
return.

B. THE SECRET SUPPER

1. That is, the heavenly archetype of the Last Supper instituted by Christ
in this world; cf. John 13:23-31; also Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:18-21.
2. Cf. Apoc. 1:9.
3. Cf. John 13:25-27; Matt. 26:21-23.
4. One of the orders of the celestial hierarchy. See Ephes. 1:21; the
Pseudo-Dionysius, The Celestial Hierarchy x (see No. 21, n. 3).
5. Our text reads et sedebat ego apud patrem meum. Reitzenstein (whom
we follow) deletes ego. D reads Ego autem sedebam, which Reitzenstein
thinks should be amended to ego autem nondum sedebam. Note that in
The Vision of Isaiah (chap. V, v. 14) Christ does not sit at the right hand
of God until after His mission to earth.
6. Cf. Isa. 14:13-14.
7. Cf. Ephes. 2:2: “prince of this air.” The Vision of Isaiah (chap. V,
v. 30) speaks of angels of the air. Nelli {Ecritures cathares, p. 53, n. 3)
defines the air as “distinct from the firmament.”
8. Cf. Apoc. 16:5.
9. D reads (translation ours): “They were like oxen yoked to the plow.”
A marginal gloss (no. 2) to this passage says: “It is true that these were none
other than fish; but they represent the Gospels and the Epistles, which sup¬
port the Church, just as the fish support the earth ....”
10. Cf. Isa. 14:13-14.
11. Cf. Gen. 1:9.
12. Cf. Apoc. 11:15.
13. Cf. Luke 16:5-7.
14. Cf. John 13:27.
15. Cf. Apoc. 4:4.
16. Praecepit pater meus et transfiguravit se propter elationem suam.
D reads transfiguravit eum.
17. There is here a lacuna in the text, which may be partially explained
by a marginal gloss (no. 4), likewise mutilated, which seems to state: “... his
face changed color Pike that of a man caught?] by his lord in some evil
deed. His countenance was altered, like that of a man who had lost the light
that was in him, and was darkened because of the evil which he was
planning.” D gives no help at this point.
774 Notes to Number 56 (Part B)
18. Cf. Apoc. 12:4. Marginal gloss no. 5 reads: “The seven tails are the
seven sins or vices by which he has, until the present, seduced men, to wit:
lying, adultery, greed, theft, blasphemy, envy, and discord.” Cf. the list of
the works of the Evil One, author of the Old Testament, as given in No. 59,
IV, 10.
19. Cf. Matt. 18:26.
20. That is, the seventh age of the world.
21. A lacuna in the text.
22. We follow the text as edited, omitting the phrase et medium lumen
solis [and from half the light of the sun], which Reitzenstein deletes, proba¬
bly because of “the light of day” in the following phrase.
23. Omnem militiam et Stellas. D has omnem militias stellarum.
24. Omne vivens. Cf. Gen. 1:24. A marginal gloss (no. 6) to this passage
reads: “Birds and fishes have no spirit, nor do beasts have the spirit of man;
but birds and fishes receive all their attributes from the air and the water,
beasts from the earth.”
25. Cf. Gen. 2:7.
26. Cf. Gen. 2:21-22.
27. D names these as angels of the third and second heavens, repec-
tively.
28. Cf. Gen. 2:8. At this point there is a long marginal gloss (no. 7)
which describes Paradise. According to the gloss, the first man thought
Paradise was good, even as men continued to do after him, but it was
actually evil. Death came to man not because of his disobedience, but
because of the wiles of the devil. Man, the glossator remarks, would not
have escaped death even had he refused to eat of the fruit.
29. Aequitatis et iniquitatis. D reads scientiae boni et mali, which is
closer to the biblical text, Gen. 2:16-17.
30. Marginal gloss no. 8 here remarks that the serpent who deceived Eve
bad the form of an attractive youth.
31. Cf. II Cor. 11:3.
32. Cf. Gen. 6:2.
33. Cf. John 8:44; Matt. 3:7.
34. Cf. Rom. 4:15.
35. There is a lacuna in the text which the editor has partially supplied
by the words simul spiritum.
36. Cf. John 3:6.
37. Et ita [non\ finitur regnum sathanae in hoc mundo, i.e., Satan’s reign
is perpetuated by the propagation of souls as well as bodies until the con¬
summation of the world; see § 12.
38. There is a lacuna in our text. D reads: “From the time that the devil
fell from the glory of the Father and desired his own glory, he was seated
above the clouds and sent his ministers, the angels of searing fire, to men
below from Adam to Enoch, his minister.”
39. D reads “sixty-six.”
Notes to Number 56 (Part B) 775
40. Matt. 23:13.
41. Cf. Deut. 4:35; Judith 9:19; Mark 12:32.
42. Nomen meumt but “His” seems called for, as the editor observes.
43. A marginal gloss (no. 10) comments that this was the wood with
which Moses divided the waters of the Red Sea to allow the children of
Israel to pass.
44. Cf. Exod. 14:16.
45. Matt. 18:11; Luke 19:10.
46. Cf. Matt. 17:12-13.
47. The text reads eum where me would be expected in obvious reference
to Jesus. From here to the end of the paragraph, the text offers some dif¬
ficulty. It follows biblical passages in which John is speaking (it is a com¬
bination of John 1:26,33; Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:4; and Luke 3:16 and 9:56);
but here the words are given either to the devil or to Jesus, with consequent
confusion of pronouns. Nelli (Ecritures cathares, pp. 61-62, and nn. 27-30)
wrestled with the problem, and we have borrowed some of the fruits of his
efforts, for which we render due thanks. D is of no help in construing the
text at this point.
48. The manuscript was illegible; the words in brackets accord with the
passage in D.
49. Cf. John 6:33,41,51,54-55.
50. Cf. Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36.
51. Matt. 19:11-12.
52. Matt. 24:3.
53. Cf. Apoc. 6:9-11.
54. Apoc. 20:7.
55. Matt. 24:29. At this point, there is a marginal gloss (no. 12) explain¬
ing that the sun is the prince (Satan) and his throne; the moon is the law of
Moses; and the stars are the spirits of the prince’s ministry. These will have
no more place over which to rule, “but Christ, the Son of God, who is a
sun of sevenfold light, shall reign.”
56. Apoc. 7:1. A marginal gloss (no. 11) states: ... “The four winds are
the kings who will persecute the existing Church and in war will pitilessly
kill other men.”
57. Cf. Matt. 24:30.
58. “The fourth hour” in D.
59. Cf. Matt. 25:31 and 19:28.
60. Cf. Apoc. 20:12.
61. The Latin of this passage is obscure and probably corrupt. It reads
et adducent eos [se\cum sua in ovi[U\a mihi super nubem in aerem. The
author seems to have had in mind I Thess. 4:16: “We ... shall be taken up
together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air” (simul rapie-
mur cum illis in nubibus obviam Christo in aera).
62. The text is defective and our translation conjectural.
63. Cf. Isa. 22:13.
lit Notes to Number 56 (Part B)

64. Matt. 25:34.

65. Matt. 25:41.
66. Ps. 9:18 (A.V. 17).
67. John 10:16.
68. V ends here, in the middle of this sentence. From this point to the
end we follow D.
69. Et erit dominus.
70. Nelli (Ecritures cathares, p. 50, n. 138), calls attention to similar
passages in two other apocryphal writings, one of Bogomil origin, suggesting
that the man thirty years of age may symbolize Christ. See also Turdeneau,
“Apocryphes bogomiles,” RHR, CXXXVIII (1950), 209.
71. Cf. Apoc. 20:14,15.
72. Reitzenstein (p. 308) prints open nos, mare. The reading in Doat
(operi nos in te) is clear. Cf. Num. 16:30.
73. Heb. 2:13.
74. Cf. John 17:25.
75. Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43 (from Ps. 109 [A.V. 1101:1).
76. Cf. Deut. 4:35.
77. Cf. Matt. 8:12, 13:42.
78. Apoc. 7:16,17.
79. This notation was probably made by an inquisitor or a scribe of an
inquisitorial court.

57. THE CATHARIST RITUALS

1. The word was known to orthodox writers in the early thirteenth cen¬
tury, its first known appearances being in the treatise against heretics of
Ermengaud (Migne, PL, CCIV, 1262; see item xiv in the Appendix) and in
the work of Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay (No. 38, § 15). It perhaps developed
from scriptural phrases such as consolari in vos (Rom. 1:2) and ut conso-
lentur (Col. 2:2). The term appeared first in Provencal speech and from
that was taken over into Latin (Borst, p. 193, n. 10).
2. Cf. No. 23, § 2a,b; No. 38, §§ 13-15; and No. 50, part A.
3. Jean Guiraud, “Le Consolamentum cathare,” RQH, new ser., XXXI
(1904), 74-112, compares the consolamentum with early Christian practice.
The substance of this article is repeated in his Histoire de l'Inquisition,
Vol. I, chap. IV. See also the remarks of Dondaine (Un Traite neo-mani-
cheen, pp. 45-46) and Borst (pp. 193-96).
4. References in some sources to a distinction between the newly con¬
verted and the fully professed heretics perhaps arise from the distinction
between one who has received the right to say the Prayer but on whom the
consolamentum had not yet been conferred.
5. Cf. No. 28, n. 6. In the language of the Latin ritual, the initiate, who
is a “believer” (credens) at the beginning, becomes a “Christian” (christianus)
at the end.
Notes to Number 57 (Part A) 777
6. Cf. the ethical standards set forth in No. 60, part A, and the discourses
on persecution there and in No. 59, VII.
7. Dondaine, Un Trait6 neo-manicheen, pp. 34-39; Borst, pp. 279-83.
8. Dondaine (Un Trait& nio-manicheen, p. 49) says that the words about
baptism were intended to veil the true attitude of the heretics from the new
convert. Borst (p. 282, n. 16) disagrees. See part A, n. 75, below.
9. Schmidt (Histoire et doctrine, II, 115-19), writing before the texts of
the rituals had been discovered and basing his interpretation on inquisitorial
records, used the term “Benediction.” Alexander Solovjev (“La Messe
cathare,” Cahiers d*etudes cathares, XII [1951-1952], 199-206) compares
the phrases with those used by the Bogomils (see part B, n. 1, below) and
uses the term “Mass.”
10. Guiraud (Histoire de VInquisition, I, 185-90), describes this ceremony
as a confession by believers to a Perfect. But the wording of the Service
belies this. It refers to eliminating the desires of the flesh, keeping the fasts,
and reciting the Prayer, all of which were obligations of the Perfect. More¬
over, the participants in the Service are in other sources called either
“heretics” or “Cathars” (see No. 49 and No. 51, § 7), both of which terms
are normally restricted to the Perfect. It does not seem likely, therefore,
that believers took part in the Service, although they may have been present.
If the believers did confess in the Service, we have proof that high moral
standards were demanded of them—a contradiction of the charge, not in¬
frequently made, that Catharist believers were prone to immorality, even
encouraged in it.
11. Borst (p. 200, n. 28) notes similarities to Catholic practice.
12. Ermengaud, Tractatus, in Migne, PL, CCIV, 1262: ille qui major est
et ordinatus dicitur. On the title Vancia, or ancianus, see No. 54, n. 30.
13. Cf. No. 49; No. 54, §§ 8,9, and n. 30. Borst (p. 212) points out that
in southern France by 1300 Catharist leaders are regularly called “elders,”
rather than “bishops.”
14. See No. 54, § 9. Catholic sources often refer to this form of greeting
as reverentia or adoration see No. 55, I, 2; also Dondaine, Un Traite neo-
manichien, p. 44, and Borst, pp. 198-99, who cite many appearances of the
different terms for the practice in the sources.
15. The embrace is called caron in No. 54, § 9. Numerous references in
the sources are cited in Borst, p. 199, n. 27.
16. See the Provencal ritual, under “Rules of Conduct”; cf. No. 54, § 5.
That genuflections as well as prayer were involved is shown by a phrase in
another reference: “They perform ... their genuflections in the heretical
fashion vel in duplo vel in simplici” (Dollinger, Beitrage, II, 39).
17. Un Traite neo-manicheen, pp. 34-39.
18. Die Katharer, pp. 280-83.

A. THE RITUAL TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN TEXT

1. The manuscript being mutilated, the first part of the ritual is lost. The
778 Notes to Number 57 (Part A)
extant text begins in the midst of a discourse to the initiate, with this pas¬
sage from Isaiah (29:19-21).
2. That is, the “people of God,” the fallen angels. See the definition of
the kingdom of God in the following commentary; cf. also No. 60, part B,
introduction and passim.
3. Ps. 140 (A.V. 141):2.
4. With all of the following commentary on the Lord’s Prayer cf. that
in No. 60, part B.
5. Luke 17:21.
6. Joel 2:17.
7. John 6:38, with minor changes.
8. Panem nostrum supersubstancialem: In many manuscripts of the Vul¬
gate these words appear in Mark 6:11, but are replaced by panem quotidia-
num [daily bread] in the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2, and the use of the
latter has generally prevailed. Although panem supersubstancialem was
quite familiar to orthodox commentators (see Dondaine, Un Traite neo¬
man ickeen, p. 48; Borst, p. 311) the use of these words in the Lord’s Prayer
was considered evidence of heresy in the Middle Ages; see Giuseppe Boffito,
“Gli eretici di Cuneo,” Bolletino storico-bibliografico subalpino, I (1896),
324-33, esp. 329. The editor of our text notes that just after the word
“people” in the sentence which follows, some lines are marked for deletion
from the text. They read: “ ‘Give us this day,’ as if one were to say: Holy
Father, bestow Thy strength on us, so that in the time of grace we may be
worthy to fulfill the law and commandments of Thy Son, who is the living
bread.” The deletion seems to have been made in order to substitute the
long exposition of panem supersubstancialem, which is to be regarded as
an interpolation in the original commentary; the original passage reappears
in substance at the end of the interpolation (Dondaine, Un Traite neo-
manicheen, p. 47). See also the definition of panem supersubstancialem in
No. 60, part B, chap. V.
9. Isa. 4:1.
10. Ps. 101:5 (A.V. 102:4).
11. Wisd. 16:20-21.
12. Isa. 58:7.
13. Lam. 4:4.
14. John 6:32-33.
15. John 6:35.
16. John 6:47-48,50-55.
17. John 4:34.
18. John 6:56.
19. I John 2:5-6.
20. The following quotation, in which the author’s commentary and
other biblical texts are interpolated, is Matt. 26:26.
21. Apoc. 10:9,11.
22. John 6:52 (A.V. 51).
Notes to Number 57 (Part A)
23. I Cor. 10:16-17.
24. I Cor. 11:23-25.
25. I Cor. 10:13. Cf. the two kinds of temptation described in No. 60,
part B, chap. VII. We have not seen Rene Nelli, “Les Deux Tentations chez
les Cathares du XIIIe si&cle,” Cahiers cTetudes cathares, IV (1949), 7-12.
26. Cf. the text of the Lord’s Prayer in Latin in the first portion of the
Provencal ritual, which also includes this doxology; and No. 60, part B,
chaps. IX-XI, which has an explanation of its significance. Also see No. 16,
n. 4.
27. That is, over the suprasensible world, the dominion of the good God,
as opposed to this material world, the realm of the devil.
28. Matt. 6:15.
29. Elsewhere in this ritual and in the Provencal version as well, com¬
parable phrases omit the pledge of obedience.
30. A copy of the Gospel of John or of the New Testament, whole or in
part.
31. In the ritual for the consolamentum which follows in our text, this
individual is identified as an elder (andan us).
32. On the concept of “order,” see No. 23, n. 8.
33. On the Service and the Act of Peace, see the introduction, and for
the Act of Peace, part B, n. 51.
34. De bono. The boon requested here is salvation through the consola¬
mentum, as shown by the subsequent ritual responses: “Receive it to His
honor and your salvation” and “Receive it to His honor and your good.”
35. Matt. 3:11.
36. John 3:5.
37. Supertinctio: see Du Cange, j.v. “tingere.”
38. Bar. 3:9-13.
39. Ps. 78 (A.V. 79): 1.
40. Ephes. 5:25-27.
41. John 20:21-23.
42. Matt. 18:18-19.
43. Matt. 16:13-19.
44. Mark 16:15-18.
45. Matt. 28:16-20.
46. Acts 8:14-17.
47. Acts 19:1-7.
48. Acts 9:11-12,17-19.
49. Acts 28:8.
50. II Tim. 1:6.
51. I Tim. 5:22.
52. Heb. 6:2.
53. I Pet. 3:20-21.
54. Gen. 9:25.
55. Heb. 11:7.
780 Notes to Number 57 (Part A)

56. Ecclus. 44:17-19.

57. II Pet. 2:5.
58. I Pet. 3:21. The printed text has facit nos but Borst (p. 285) corrects
to facit vos from the manuscript.
59. Ps. 73 (A.V. 74): 12.
60. The scribe wrote, “Isaiah says,” but the quotation is actually from
Jer. 8:20.
61. Heb. 2:10.
62. I Pet. 3:21.
63. I Cor. 12:31-13:3.
64. Luke 10:27. With this and the following precepts, cf. the similar pas¬
sages in the discourse in part B and also the moral and ethical code set forth
in No. 60, part A.
65. The source of these quotations is not known, but similar phrases are
cited by the editor (p. 162, note) from the works of Irenaeus, Augustine, and
Bernard of Clairvaux.
66. Wisd. 6:20.
67. Meaning, no doubt, faithful discharge of obligations in respect of
personal property and the common possessions of the group. Cf. in the
consolamentum for invalids in the Provencal ritual, the injunction to inquire
as to the lawful behavior of the one who is to be baptized.
68. I Cor. 6:10, omitting a substantial portion of the verse.
69. Ps. 115 (A.V. 116): 14-15.
70. Heb. 10:39.
71. II Tim. 2:4.
72. Luke 9:62.
73 Ecclus. 34:30-31.
74. II Pet. 2:20-22.
75. Moneta of Cremona (Adversus Catharos et Valdenses, ed. by Ric-
chini, p. 292) states that some heretics taught that they would receive and
perform baptism in water in order by that sign to draw men on to the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. In other orthodox sources, the Cathars are
represented as entirely repudiating the baptism of water. It is emphatically
rejected in another heretical work; see No. 60, part A, chap. XI.
76. This Scripture lesson was usually John 1:1-17.
77. Levet gratiam.

B. THE RITUAL TRANSLATED FROM THE PROVENCAL TEXT

1. All of this section is written in Latin, with the exception of the thrice-
repeated directions “Three times.” Solovjev (“La Messe Cathare,” Cahiers
d’etudes cathares, XII [1951-1952], 199-206) analyzes this as a four-part
service (each part represented by one paragraph here), consisting of a litany,
the Lord’s Prayer, another litany, and the Gospel of John, and supposes that
preaching from a Gospel text would also be part of this worship. Solovjev
finds a close parallel between this and the usage of Bogomils of Bulgaria
Notes to Number 57 (Part B) 781

and Bosnia, the only exception being the absence here of a phrase found in
the Eastern texts: Dignum et justum est [he is worthy and just]. Solovjev
had not noticed that in the description of the consolamentum by Anselm of
Alessandria (No. 54, § 5) that phrase does occur. Slight variations in phrase¬
ology are to be expected over wide areas and many years, but the similarity
which Solovjev pointed out is, in fact, closer than he supposed.
2. Matt. 6:9-13.
3. See part A, n. 26, above.
4. John 1:1-17. On the punctuation of w. 3-4, see No. 47, n. 43.
5. The words in italics here and subsequently in this translation were in¬
scribed in Latin in the manuscript.
6. This probably means failure to say the Lord’s Prayer at the usual times
with the requisite number of repetitions.
7. Venias: genuflections or prostrations as an accompaniment to prayer,
presumably similar to those common in orthodox practice.
8. Matt. 18:20.
9. John 14:23.
10. II Cor. 6:16-18.
11. II Cor. 13:3.
12. I Tim. 3:14-15.
13. Heb. 3:6.
14. John 14:15-18.
15. Matt. 28:20.
16. I Cor. 3:16-17.
17. Matt. 10:20.
18. I John 4:13.
19. Gal. 4:6.
20. We alter the punctuation used by C16dat (per Vavenement del seu fil
Jesu Christ, don es aquesta Vocais. Quar esz aid devant los dedpols ....)
and follow the lead given by the Latin ritual in the corresponding place.
This emendation is also adopted by Dondaine (Un Traite neo-manicheen,
p. 37) and Nelli (Ecritures cathares, p. 217).
21. Matt. 6:15.
22. Matt. 28:19-20.
23. Mark 16:15-16.
24. John 3:5.
25. John 1:26-27; Matt. 3:11. The author combines elements of both
texts.
26. Acts 1:5.
27. Mark 16:18.
28. Acts 8:14-17, omitting part of v. 16.
29. John 20:21-23.
30. Matt. 16:18-19.
31. Matt. 18:19-20.
32. Matt. 10:8.
782 Notes to Number 57 (Part B)

33. John 14:12.

34. Mark 16:17-18.
35. Luke 10:19.
36. Cf. Matt. 5:21-48.
37. I John 2:15-17.
38. John 7:7.
39. Eccles. 1:14.
40. Jude 1:23.
41. Las pareias: On this and the terms in nn. 42-45 and 47, see our in¬
troduction to the rituals.
42. A doremus.
43. Sezena.
44. Far patz.
45. Dobla.
46. Et auran liurat: The editor (p. xxi) translates this as “et ils [lui]
auront [ainsi] livre [Foraison]. But the ministration of the Prayer is not in¬
volved here. Nelli {Ecritures cathares, p. 233) translates it as “la cer6monie
est termin6e.”
47. Sembla.
48. Apoc. 21:8.
49. Si pod lavar (corrected by Cledat to levar) las mas. Cledat (p. xxiii,
n. 6) suggests the possibility of correcting the reading further to “sit up if
he can and wash his hands.”
50. That is, proffer the Gospels to be kissed; see the following note.
51. The difference between this and the earlier salutation “used for
women” is made clear by the description of a heretication about 1231
(Vaissete, Histoire du Languedoc, VIII, 1017) in which, after the believer
had declared his wish to be consoled and his obligations had been explained,
he performed his melioramentum and “afterward kissed the Book of the
heretics; this done, they placed the Book and their hands on his head and
read the Gospel. Thereafter these heretics made their confession (fecerunt
apparellamentum) and performed the Act of Peace, at that time kissing each
other once on each cheek.”
52. This sentence indicates that the consolamentum bestowed on the
deathbed was of a provisional nature. If the initiate recovered he had to
receive baptism again to be assured of its full effect; see Nelli, Ecritures
cathares, p. 209.

58. A “MANICHAEAN” TREATISE

1. On Durand of Huesca, see No. 36, and on his polemical writings, see
items xii, xiii, and xvii in the Appendix.
2. Only one half of Durand’s treatise (Book I) is now known. Book II
contained other excerpts from the heretical work; see n. 16, below, and
Thouzellier, Un Trait4 cathare, pp. 85-86.
Notes to Number 58 783
3. Ibid., pp. 28, 33, 40. Elsewhere he speaks of the heretics inhabiting
Gothia and Aquitaine. “Gothia” is a name which was passing out of use at
the time Durand wrote. It specifies the region which later became known as
Lower Languedoc (Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-cathare, pp. 35; 119, note
to 1. 15; and 210, note to 1. 31).
4. He knew of the division of the Cathars into followers of the Greek,
Bulgarian, and Dragovitsan churches, and also calls his opponents “Bulgars,”
“Marcionites,” and “Marcionite Cathars,” accusing them of drawing freely
from other ancient heresies as well {ibid., pp. 115, 138-39, 175, 237-39,
and 303).
5. Tractatus manicheorum (Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, p. 87).
6. Ibid., p. 29; Dondaine, “Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959),
246-47.
7. He writes “we believe” and “we say” and uses the first person singular
only in a passage of invective against his opponents (chap. XIV).
8. Duvernoy (“Un Trait6 cathare,” Cahiers d'etudes cathares, 2d ser.,
XIII [1962], 27), opposes both of the following suggestions on the ground
that Durand of Huesca or Moneta of Cremona (whom Duvernoy supposes
also knew the heretical treatise) would have known and stated the names of
the men here suggested as the author.
9. His story is told by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay Hystoria albigensis
i.xxii-xxiii, ed. by GuSbin and Lyon, I, 24-26. See also No. 59,1, 19.
10. Thouzellier, Un TraitS cathare, pp. 29-33. In the discussion of the
possibility of his authorship, there is a valuable review (pp. 33-40) of the
question of dualism in the Bosnian church in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries and the relationships between that church and the Cathars.
11. On the date of the Liber, see Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-cathare,
p. 38; on the date of the heretical work, see idem, Un Traite cathare, p. 28.
Cf. Dondaine, “Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 243. Duvernoy
(“Un Traite cathare,” Cahiers df6tudes cathares, 2d ser., XIII [1962], 25)
would assign the heretical tract to a date nearer the beginning of the
century.
12. The heretic quotes the Bible in the Vulgate. The Psalter follows the
Gallican tradition and the whole is in the “French” tradition whose use was
stimulated by Alcuin and his successors: Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare,
pp. 56-64, 84. Cf. n. 25, below.
13. Ibid., p. 67.
14. Reliance on the Old Testament as well as the New and the exposition
of the meaning of the words “create” and “make” are two of the points of
likeness: ibid., pp. 50-56, 71-72.
15. The exposition of the heretic’s teaching in chap. Ill of Thouzellier’s
introduction is made with insight and mastery of detail and is drawn on
heavily in the following paragraphs. It should be consulted directly for
fullest appreciation of the doctrines.
16. From a statement in chap. IV and from a table of contents for a
784 Notes to Number 58

missing Book II of Durand’s work (ibid., p. 86), it appears that in that lost
book was a discussion of food and drink, the nature of the carnal world,
Christ, human procreation, the “new man” and his regeneration and spirit¬
ual food, the analogy of the good and evil sheep, the prince of this world,
and good and evil angels who served God and the devil.
17. Cf. similar monotheistic professions by heretics in No. 28 and
No. 29.
18. Cf. Duvemoy, “Un Traite cathare,” Cahiers d*etudes cathares, 2d
ser., XIII (1962), 27-29. See also nn. 138 and 146, below.
19. Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, pp. 77-78.
20. This probably does not mean that the wicked world will cease en¬
tirely to be, but that the incarceration of the heavenly spirits therein will
end. See n. 210, below.
21. The chapter titles are those of Durand’s treatise of refutation, with
minor changes.
22. Ps. 145 (A.V. 146):6.
23. Isa. 48:12-13.
24. Isa. 65:17.
25. Apoc. 14:7. The reading of this verse offers one example of the
variants in biblical texts, by close study of which Mile Thouzellier was able
to demonstrate that the Catharist author used the Bible in the Vulgate,
rather than in a version of Eastern origin or one derived from pre-Vulgate
texts, as has sometimes been asserted of the Cathars’ Bibles; see Un Trait6
cathare, pp. 54-64. Variants will not be noted here except when they seem
to have significance for the author’s argument.
26. Apoc. 4:11.
27. Acts 14:14.
28. Acts 4:24.
29. Acts 17:24. Cf. this and the preceding citations with No. 59, V,
where they are listed as authorities used by the Garatenses, mitigated du¬
alists, to demonstrate the existence of one supreme creator. See also the
demonstration of their frequent use in Catholic polemics: Thouzellier, Un
Traite cathare, pp. 87-88.
30. Ps. 113 2 (A.V. 115): 15.
31. Apoc. 3:14.
32. Fecisse pariter et creasse. The significance of these words is related
to the controversy between Catharist groups and between some of them and
Catholics as to whether creation is from pre-existent matter or from nothing.
The distinction is important to the author of The Book of the Two Prin¬
ciples (see No. 59, passim, esp. I, n. 28).
33. Etc. appears at the end of each excerpt from the heretical work,
showing that only portions of it were copied by Durand.
34. For the two created realms the author uses the words seculum, mun-
dus, and orbis. All may be rendered as “world,” as they are in standard
translations of the Bible. A consistent distinction in the use of seculum and
Notes to Number 58 785

mundus appears in this treatise, however: In chap. Ill all the selected
scriptural texts use seculum for “world”; in chap. IV all use mundus; and
the chapter titles devised by Durand of Huesca respect this difference. Since
we have not been able to make a satisfactory distinction in English, we show
the Latin term, in parentheses.
35. See Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, pp. 73-74, on the twelfth-century
theological argument for the rationality of Christian belief based on the
juxtaposition of “faith” and “hope.” Mile Thouzellier regards our author’s
use of the phrase as evidence of his theological erudition.
36. Heb. 11:1.
37. Luke 20:34-35.
38. Gal. 1:3-4.
39. Ephes. 2:1-2.
40. Rom. 12:2.
41. I Cor. 2:6-8.
42. Cf. I John 5:19.
43. Jas. 4:4.
44. I Cor. 7:31.
45. I John 2:15-16.
46. John 14:30.
47. John 18:36.
48. John 17:9.
49. John 17:25.
50. John 17:16.
51. John 16:33.
52. John 15:19.
53. John 17:14.
54. I John 3:13-14.
55. I John 3:1.
56. John 17:10.
57. John 18:36.

69. Apoc. 21:1.

70. Isa. 60:20.
786 Notes to Number 58
71. Wisd. 5:6.
72. Apoc. 21:2.
73. Apoc. 21:18.
74. Gal. 4:26.
75. Apoc. 2:7.
76. Apoc. 22:1-2.
77. Dan. 7:10.
78. I Gor. 2:9.
79. John 1:11.
80. 1 John 2:15.
81. I John 5:19.
82. Luke 1:38.
83. Cf. John 1:13.
84. Matt. 13:24.
85. Matt. 13:37-39.
86. I John 3:10.
87. Luke 11:39, with changes based on Matt. 23:25,26.
88. Matt. 15:19. The thought of the paragraph is obscure. Mile Thouzel-
lier (Un Traite cathare, p. 79), finds in it an allusion to the heretical doctrine
of fallen angels, souls imprisoned in bodies made by the devil while their
spirits, not under demonic power, remained in the heavenly world (cf. No.
23, § 2; No. 50, part A). While “less capable interpreters” assert that
Christ’s words are evidence that both body and spirit are of the Father, the
heretic declares that there is no reference to the spirit here, but only to the
heart, from which flow the vices enumerated. The body (that which is
without) and the heart (that which is within) are the work of Satan and the
soul is their prisoner.
89. Ephes. 5:15-16.
90. Ephes. 6:13.
91. Matt. 6:34.
92. Ps. 101 (A.V. 102): 12.
93. Job 7:6.
94. Job 29:2.
95. I Pet 3:10.
96. II Pet. 3:8.
97. John 7:7.
98. John 3:19-20.
99. John 1:9; 3:20.
100. John 8:34.
101. Cf. No. 51, § 20; No. 59, II, 11, for names, including “sin,” applied
to the principle of evil.
102. I John 3:8.
103. Ecclus. 14:20.
104. Ephes. 2:2.
105. Cf. II Cor. 11:13.
Notes to Number 58

106. Eccles. 1:14.

107. Eccles. 3:19-20.
108. Ecclus. 39:21.
109. Wisd. 11:25.
110. Eccles. 3:11.
111. Eccles. 3:14.
112. Ecclus. 14:21.
113. Phil. 2:13.
114. Ponitur pro operatione.
115. Heb. 9:11-12.
116. Wisd. 3:12-13.
117. Cf. Matt. 24:35.
118. II Pet. 3:5-10.
119. Heb. 6:8.
120. Ecclus. 17:30.
121. Cf. the more extensive treatment of this subject in No. 59, III.
122. Col. 1:19-20; cf. ibid. 2:9.
123. John 12:32.
124. Matt. 11:27.
125. John 1:3-4. On the phrasing of this verse see nn. 138, 146, below.
126. Phil. 3:8.
127. Eccles. 1:2.
128. Eccles. 1:14.
129. Eccles. 3:19-20.
130. Ecclus. 42:25.
131. I Cor. 8:4.
132. I Cor. 13:2. Cf. the treatment of “charity” in No. 60. chap. V.
133. Isa. 40:17.
134. Ps. 58 (A.V. 59):9.
135. Ps. 14 (A.V. 15):4.
136. Ezech. 28:19.
137. Isa. 41:24.
138. The heretic is using an interpretation found in several other of the
controversial works (see Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, p. 103, nn. a,b):
That which is called “nothing” was made without Christ, while that which is
made by Him is “life.” In his reply, Durand said that the Cathars believed
nihil [nothing] to mean visible creatures (Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-
cathare, p. 217; cf. a similar statement by a heretic of the early fourteenth
century in Dollinger, Beitrage, II, 40). This and other interpretations Durand
rejected, arguing that the verse means that no substance at all can exist
without God. Moneta of Cremona Adversus Catharos et Valdenses, p. 89,
also rebutted heretics on this point. Cf. Duvernoy, “Un Trait6 cathare,”
Cahiers d'itudes cathares9 2d ser., XIII (1962), 27-28; and n. 146, below.
139. I Cor. 13:2.
140. Heb. 3:4.
788 Notes to Number 58

141. Ecclus. 18:1.

142. Col. 1:16-17.
143. The reference is to thrones, dominations, etc., as ranks in the
angelic hierarchy. See No. 56, part B, n. 4.
144. Rom. 1:20.
145. John 1:3.
146. John 1:3-4. The proper punctuation of this passage has long been a
subject of controversy. Augustine accused the Manichaeans of placing a
comma after in ipso [in him], and Durand berates the Cathars for the same
punctuation, which allows the interpretation that life existed before it was
“made’ ’in God, rather than the orthodox reading: Whatever was made had
life in God, who made all things; the world pre-existed in Him as the Logos.
See the discussion in Thouzellier, Une Somme anti-cathare, p. 233, note at
line 34; cf. No. 47, n. 43.
147. I Tim. 4:4.
148. Cf. I John 2:16.
149. Cf. Gal. 3:1.
150. Cf. Acts 13:10; Phil. 3:18.
151. Cf. Matt. 15:14.
152. Cf. Matt. 13:13; Acts 28:6.
153. Cf. Gal. 3:22.
154. Cf. Rom. 11:8.
155. Ps. 92 (A.V. 93): 1.
156. Heb. 1:2.
157. Heb. 1:10; Ps. 101 (A.V. 102):26.
158. Ps. 26 (A.V. 27): 13.
159. Ps. 141:6 (A.V. 142:5).
160. Ps. 142 (A.V. 143): 10.
161. Ps. 23 (A.V. 24): 1.
162. Ps. 136 (A.V. 137):4.
163. Cf. Ps. 2:2.
164. Luke 11:23.
165. John 8:47.
166. Matt. 5:4.
167. Job 28:6.
168. Czech. 36:24.
169. Job 28:6.
170. Ashur commonly symbolizes the devil in heretical thought; see No.
59,11,11.
171. Ezech. 32:22-24.
172. Nunc dormient. Vulgate non dormient.
173. Ezech. 32:26-27.
174. Ezech. 32:30-32.
175. Jer. 5:19. The preceding verses describing the evil world may also
be taken to reflect the heretical myth of the invasion of heaven, “the land
Notes to Number 58 789

of the living,” by the hosts of Satan, who, having been defeated, now lie
here in their original home, although a third of the creatures of God were
swept away “to serve strange gods” (Thouzellier, Un Traite cathare, p. 78;
cf. n. 88, above).
176. Ezech. 34:12-13.
177. Isa. 66:1.
178. Isa. 45:12.
179. Cf. Isa. 65:17.
180. Isa. 45:8.
181. Jer. 27:5.
182. Acts 7:49; Isa. 66:1.
183. Matt. 6:9.
184. Isa. 66:22.
185. II Pet. 3:13.
186. Isa. 45:12.
187. Isa. 65:17.
188. Isa. 1:2.
189. Ps. 101:26 (A.V. 102:25).
190. Ps. 101:27 (A.V. 102:26).
191. Cf. Matt. 12:35.
192. II Pet. 3:7.
193. II Pet. 3:10-12.
194. Isa. 51:6.
195. Matt. 15:13.
196. Ps. 101:26 (A.V. 102:25).
197. See n. 190.
198. Isa. 1:2.
199. I Cor. 10:10.
200. Ezech. 34:16.
201. Luke 19:10.
202. Matt. 10:5-6.
203. Matt. 15:24.
204. Ps. 18:2 (A.V. 19:1).
205. Ps. 113 * (A.V. 115):16; Ps. 148:4.
206. Cf. Bar. 3:11.
207. Ps. 6:8.
208. I Cor. 15:51.
209. I Cor. 15:52.
210. Ps. 76 (A.V. 77): 11. With the preceding description of the Last
Judgment, cf. chap. XI. Should the passage be taken to mean that the
present evil world will be destroyed in an absolute sense? This would seri¬
ously modify the doctrine of radical dualism, of two coeternal creations,
which is manifested elsewhere in the treatise. Mile Thouzellier (Un Traitt
cathare, pp. 81-82) suggests that in the light of chap. XI, especially the
paraphrase of Matt. 24:35 therein, the interpretation is not that the diabolic
790 Notes to Number 58
creation will be utterly dissolved but that the state of imprisonment of souls
in terrestrial life will end; that is, in so far as God's creatures are con¬
cerned, the domination of evil over them will be destroyed. The good and
imperishable heavens spoken of in this chapter symbolize the fallen souls
whom Christ redeemed.
211. Matt. 15:24.
212. Matt. 10:6.
213. Ezech. 34:11-12.
214. Ezech. 34:16.
215. Luke 19:10.
216. Luke 9:56.
217. Matt. 23:37.
218. Ezech. 36:24.
219. II Tim. 4:8.
220. Ps. 50:14 (A.V. 51:12).
221. Lam. 5:16.
222. Durand refers here to his chap. XX, “On the Creation or the Origin
of Souls, against the Cathars As Well As against Ail Other Adversaries of
the Orthodox Faith”; and chap. XXI, “On Predestination, against the Mod¬
ern Manichaeans and against Ail Others Who Dissent from the Catholic
Truth.” They contain no excerpts from the heretical work, and only the
titles are given in the edition by Thouzeliier.
223. Antifrasice calamum. See Thouzeliier, Une Somme anti-cat hare y
p. 124, note to line 23.

59. THE BOOK OF THE TWO PRINCIPLES

1. See the comment by Dondaine in his Introduction (p. 24) and the
harsher judgment by Borst (pp. 264-65, 268-69) on the style and the intel¬
lectual quality of the treatise.
2. Borst, pp. 261-62, 270.
3. Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, pp. 18, 19. Runciman (Medieval
Manichee, p. 127, n. 1) and Thouzeliier (Un Traite cathare, pp. 19, 20)
accept John of Lugio’s authorship; Borst (p. 261) flatly rejects it. Most
other commentators hesitate to make judgments so positive.
4. On the manuscript, see the Introduction by Dondaine (pp. 9-14), and
Borst, pp. 254-61. The date post quern, 1254 or 1258, depends on the inter¬
pretation of a cryptogram written in the margin at the end of the last sec¬
tion of the treatise in the manuscript. A photograph of that folio is repro¬
duced on p. 147 of Dondaine’s edition and the cryptogram is transcribed on
p. 13. It records that one Sagimbenus, at the age of fifty-one and a half
years, received the consolamentum from Henry in Salmignono. Dondaine
read the coded numerals denoting the date as 1258, Borst (p. 259) as 1254,
but both admit that the transcription is not entirely assured. Savini (II
catarismo, p. 120, n. 11) suggests that it could be 1238.
Notes to Number 59 (Part I) 791
5. Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, pp. 18-21. Nelli devotes most of
the Introduction to his French translation of the work (Ecritures cathares,
pp. 71-82) to an exposition of John of Lugio’s teaching.
6. The preceding paragraph is based primarily on Borst, pp. 269-75.
7. On acceptance of the Old Testament among the Cathars, see part IV,
n. 83.
8. Borst, pp. 265-66.
9. For commentaries on the system of John of Lugio, one may also con¬
sult Dondaine’s Introduction, pp. 18-20, 31-33; Borst, pp. 270-71; and Nelli,
Ecritures catharesy pp. 71-82.
10. The unity of knowledge and will in God is a point made explicitly
in IV.3.
11. This portion of the treatise is in two parts in the manuscript, being
interrupted after the first paragraph by other material, chiefly the text of
the Catharist ritual in Latin.
12. With this, cf. the passage on persecution in No. 60, chap. X.

[i. ON FREE WILL]

1. Pater sanctissimus, a term also employed in the ritual in Latin (No.
57, part A).
2. Borst (p. 287) notes the similarity of this passage to Aristotle Physica
I. 2: “The principles in question must be (a) one or (b) more than one” (the
translation is from The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, ed. by
J. A. Smith and W. D. Ross [Oxford, 1910-1952], II, 184M5). Borst (pp.
274-75) is of the opinion that our author found this and other such pas¬
sages in the work of some orthodox contemporary, perhaps William of
Auvergne, bishop of Paris (d. 1249).
3. Matt. 7:17-18.
4. Jas. 3:11-12.
5. The author seems to have in mind here not only the Garatenses, his
“opponents” in a later passage (part V; see also n. 28, below), but also
Catholic Christians, for it may be noted that he attributes to them citations
from the Old Testament, to which the Garatenses gave no credence.
6. Istis rationibus. The author uses ratio in various meanings, and it is
not always easy to find a phrase acceptable in English and faithful to the
Latin. Rationes may designate, as noted by Borst (p. 267, n. 7), lists of
scriptural verses cited to support a point, and in such cases is synonymous
with auctoritates [texts] or divina testimonia [testimony of the Scriptures],
Elsewhere the word may imply something more, the proper exegesis of
such texts; for example, in IV, 4: per divina testimonia verissimam rationem
demonstrare [to clarify the precise meaning by scriptural references]. Ratio¬
nes may also refer to logical arguments or “philosophical” conclusions; for
example, the arguments in §§ 16-20 are subsequently (II, 1) referred to as
“the argumentations of philosophers.” In the singular, ratio usually means
simply “argument” in the sense of a valid conclusion; for example, II, 1:
792 Notes to Number 59 (Part I)
nostri adversarii... nullam habeant rationem [our adversaries ... have no
argument]. Other shades of meaning may also be found: Qua ratione [How]
in § 8; and rationabiliter [reasonably] juxtaposed with ratione et merito [in
reason and justice] in § 11.
7. Ecclus. 43:32-33.
8. Ps. 144 (A.V. 145):3.
9. Ps. 146 (A.V. 147):5.
10. Rom. 11:33.
11. The text reads: in libro De causa causarum. This pseudo-Aristotelian
work was known and used by such polemicists against the Cathars as Alan
of Lille, Peter Martyr(?>, and Moneta of Cremona, as well as by St. Thomas
Aquinas. It has been edited by Otto Bardenhewer, Die pseudo-aristotelische
Schrift ... Liber de causis (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1882); see esp. p. 168.
See also the remarks of Dondaine, Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 182, n. 6;
and Borst, p. 273, n. 14.
12. Dan. 13:42.
13. Ecclus. 23:29.
14. Heb. 4:13.
15. Ps. 72(A.V. 73):1.
16. Ps. 144:13 (not in A.V.).
17. Ps. 24 (A.V. 25):8.
18. Ps. 7:12 (A.V. 11).
19. Wisd. 12:15.
20. Cf. II Par. 20:6.
21. Eccles. 8:3-4.
22. Ps. 113 2 (A.V. 115):3.
23. Apoc. 1:8.
24. Apoc. 15:3-4.
25. Ps. 144:13 (not in A.V.).
26. Cf. the Catharist ritual translated from Latin (No. 57, part A), where
evil is described as the work of the devil. According to Rainerius Sacconi
(No. 51, § 22), John of Lugio attributed the potentiality for sin to the evil
adversary’s influence upon the creatures of the good God.
27. Perhaps the example is influenced by the words of Gen. 28:20 or
Judg. 18:6.
28. Facturam sive creationem. The author almost invariably links the
words creare [create] and facere [make] and their derivatives, such as ere-
atio and factura. Such coupling of words or phrases is characteristic of his
style. The linking of “create” and “make,” however, may also reflect his
basic disagreement with other Catharist groups, the mitigated dualists. They
saw in God the only true “creator” but they attributed to the evil one the
construction, or the making, of this world and its inhabitants out of the
pre-existent matter brought into being by God; that is, for them God
“created,” the devil “made,” the world of matter (see V, 2). This doctrine
the author of The Book of the Two Principles firmly opposes, for he and
Notes to Number 59 (Part I) 793

his fellow Albanenses conceived of two creations, good and evil, existing
eternally with their creators; “to create and make” he understands as pro¬
ducing changes in the mode of existence, in one of the three ways ex¬
pounded by John of Lugio (see 11, 4-11), Cf. the opinion of the Albigensian
author of die “Manichaean” Treatise (No. 58), chap. I.
29. Cf. Jer. 13:23.
30. Luke 12:47.
31. Matt. 25:34-35.
32. Matt. 25:41-42.
33. Matt. 25:40.
34. Matt. 23:37.
35. Ezech. 24:13.
36. Words in brackets supplied by the editor.
37. Gen. 6:6-7.
38. Isa. 43:24.
39. Isa. 1:14.
40. Mai. 2:17.
41. Ps. 105 (A.V. 106):45.
42. I Cor. 3:9.
43. Job 2:3.
44. Ezech. 13:18-19.
45. Isa. 65:12.
46. Cf. Rom. 11:36.
47. John 5:30.
48. John 14:10.
49. Jas. 1:17.
50. John 6:44.
51. John 5:30.
52. John 14:10.
53. Ephes. 2:8-9.
54. Rom. 9:16.
55. Phil. 1:6.
56. Phil. 2:13.
57. II Cor. 3:4-6.
58. John 3:27.
59. Ps. 126 (A.V. 127): 1.
60. Jer. 10:23.
61. I Cor. 15:10.
62. Prov. 8:14-16.
63. Prov. 20:24.
64. Matt. 11:27.
65. John 14:6.
66. John 15:5.
67. Luke 13:24.
68. Acts 3:12.
794 Notes to Number 59 (Part I)

69. Cf. Acts 3:13.

70. For references to the same conclusion in contemporary orthodox
sources, see Borst, p. 290.
71. Populus dei: the souls who were to be redeemed (see No. 51, § 17).
72. Ecclus. 15:21.
73. Ezech. 7:10-11. The author seems to take this passage in the literal,
although not entirely intelligible, sense that iniquity does not arise from “the
people/’ Translators of the Bible have interpolated various phrases in an
attempt to give meaning to the verse (see Interpreter’s Bible, VI, 102).
74. Matt. 13:24-25.
75. Ps. 78 (A.V. 79): 1.
76. Joel 1:6-7.
77. See § 10.
78. Ecclus. 13:19-20.
79. Ecclus. 27:10.
80. Id quod erat secundum illos eius causa scilicet bonum, minus eget
quam id quod non erat, id est malum. In translating, we have omitted eius
causa, because Borst (p. 284) points out that these words were marked for
deletion in the manuscript, and we have read egit instead of eget, to con¬
form with agat [have effect] in the next sentence. Cf. Nelli (Ecritures
cathares, p. 105, n. 15), where other textual changes are also suggested for
reasons of clarity.
81. The sources of this and the preceding quotations and the other ideas
expressed in this section have not been precisely identified. Dondaine (Un
Traite neo-manicheen, p. 93, note) and Borst (p. 291) quote passages of
similar import, chiefly from Aristotle, Al-Kindi, Ibn Gabirol, and William
of Auvergne.
82. We take this jumble of words to mean approximately the following:
A cause (God) which remains unchanged produces always the same result
(good). A new result (the sin of the angels) can be explained only by sup¬
posing that a new cause (evil) has come into effect, for authority declares
that whenever a new result is produced, it is because of the introduction of
some new agent. If the “dispositions of the agent” (whatever was the cause
of the angels’ acts) remained unaffected by internal change or external in¬
fluence, the result could not have been to bring evil into existence, but
rather evil would have remained nonexistent. A change from good to evil
could arise only from diversity of cause.
83. Ecclus. 43:33.
84. Dondaine (Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 23) supposes him to be a
Cathar and suggests that he might be the canon of Nevers who fled to the
Albigenses in 1201 and whose story is told by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay
(Hystoria albigensis, ed, by Gu6bin and Lyon, I, 24). Borst (pp. 274-75)
rejects this on the ground that an Albigensian would have been in close
doctrinal agreement with the Albanenses and hence with the author of The
Book of the Two Principles. His suggestion is that the latter had read and
Notes to Number 59 (Part II) 795

misunderstood the views of William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris (d. 1249),

whose words seem to be reflected in other places in this tract. It may be
noted, however, that of Master William the Cathar says “I have heard
(audivi) him.” Nelli (Ecritures cathares, p. 110, n. 19) supposes Master
William to have been a mitigated dualist.
85. Cf. Isa. 14:13-14.
86. This may be an allusion to the followers of Master William.
87. Cf* Corpus iuris civilis. Digest ix.2.30: Ad legem Aquilam. Qui
occidit, cited by Dondaine (Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 98, note) from the
edition of Berlin (1893), I, 129.

[II. on creation]
1. Col. 2:8.
2. It will be recalled that the arguments in the last paragraphs of part I
were not supported by scriptural citations.
3. Apoc. 4:11.
4. Apoc. 10:5-6.
5. Heb. 3:4.
6. Ecclus. 18:1.
7. Wisd. 1:14.
8. Acts 4:24.
9. Acts 17:23-25.
10. John 1:3.
11. Ephes. 4:5-6.
12. Ephes. 3:14-15.
13. I Cor, 8:6.
14. Rom. 11:36.
15. Col. 1:15-17.
16. Ps. 134 (A.V. 135):5-6.
17. I Tim. 6:13-15.
18. Apoc. 11:17.
19. Rom. 13:1.
20. Ps. 47:14-15 (A.V. 48:13-14).
21. Isa. 57:15,
22. Rom. 16:25-26.
23. Isa. 40:28.
24. Jer. 10:10.
25. Dan. 7:13.
26. Dan. 7:22.
27. The second of these explanations is the subject of part III.
28. Cf. the following paragraph with the description of the teaching of
John of Lugio given by Rainerius Sacconi in No. 51, § 21.
29. Acts 10:38. Cf. I Pet. 2:25, where Christ is referred to as a bishop.
30. Col. 3:9-10.
31. Ephes. 4:23-24.
796 Notes to Number 59 (Part II)

32. Isa. 45:8.

33. Acts 2:36.
34. Heb. 3:1-2.
35. Heb. 1:5.
36. For heretical doctrine on the “spirits and angels” of the good crea¬
tion, see No. 23, § 2a; and No. 50, part A.
37. Heb. 1:7.
38. Heb. 1:14.
39. Isa. 18:2.
40. Matt. 1:20.
41. Wisd. 11:18.
42. Gen. 2:7.
43. Ecclus. 38:4.
44. Ecclus. 17:1.
45. Heb. 2:6.
46. Heb. 2:7.
47. Ps. 2:6.
48. Eccles. 3:11.
49. Eccles. 3:14.
50. Ecclus. 39:21.
51. Ecclus. 42:23-24, with omissions.
52. Ps. 103 (A.V. 104):24.
53. Ps. 118 (A.V. 119):91.
54. Ps. 148:5-6.
55. Cf. II Pet. 3:10: “The heavens shall pass away with great violence,
and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works
which are in it shall be burnt up.”
56. “Those who had been made evil” are the fallen angels, the “people
of Israel” (see the following section), who are to be redeemed by being
turned again to good, disposed unto good works, and in that sense “created.”
57. Ephes. 2:10.
58. Ps. 103 (A.V. 104):27-30.
59. Isa. 45:6-7.
60. John 1:9.
61. Isa. 9:2 and Matt. 4:16. The words “of the Gentiles” are added to the
biblical text by the author.
62. Ephes. 5:8.
63. Ephes. 2:14.
64. Ephes. 2:15-18, omitting part of v. 16.
65. Matt. 7:11.
66. II Cor. 3:5-6.
67. Col. 1:12.
68. II Cor. 5:17.
69. Apoc. 21:5.
70. In this paragraph and in certain other passages which may be summed
Notes to Number 59 (Part II) 797
up here, the author presents numerous texts, chosen chiefly from the Old
Testament, which, symbolically interpreted, are meant to establish the exist¬
ence, power, and influence of the evil principle. That evil god has already
been described as the source and cause of all angelic imperfections (I, 8, 17),
as he is also of pride, iniquity, the defilement of the people, and infidelity
(I, 15; III, 8). In addition to the figures listed here—Ashur, the smith and
killer in Isaiah, the dragon, the behemoth, darkness, evil, the Chaldeans, the
king of Babylon, the hypocrite in the Book of Job—the principle of evil is
also identified elsewhere with “a king of shameless face,” Nebuchadnezzar,
and the “little horn” in Daniel (III, 5). He is the enemy of David in Ps. 51
(A.V. 52), the dragon of the Apocalypse, and the one who wars on the
saints (IV, 5); he is one mighty in iniquity and the chief of principalities and
powers (IV, 6). He is a strange god and mammon (IV, 8); he is represented
by Mount Seir, the enemy of the people (IV, 9), and is not only eternal
(IV, 9) but a creator and maker (IV, 10) and the source of inspiration for
all works of adultery, theft, murder, blasphemy, and falsehood (IV, 11).
Cf. the list of names which John of Lugio, according to Rainerius Sacconi,
assigned to the evil principle (No. 51, § 19).
71. Ezech. 31:8-9.
72. Isa. 54:16.
73. Isa. 45:6-7.
74. Ps. 103 (A.V. 104):26.
75. Job 40:10.
76. Isa. 31:2.
77. Jer. 4:6.
78. Hab. 1:6.
79. Amos 3:6.
80. Job 12:6.
81. Dan. 2:37-38.
82. Job 34:29-30.
83. Rom. 9:22-23.
84. Et sic potest did [Satan] factum a deo esse, id est concessum princi-
pem populiy non simpliciter, sed secundum quid improprie et per accidens.
In the author’s thought, each god may affect the other’s realm but not by
his own right as creator. The good God, who for. His own purposes per¬
mitted evil, which already existed in another creation, to affect His people,
is the creator of evil in only a superficial sense. Cf. the passage in § 12,
where the author reiterates his concept that evil (darkness), although a
reality, is not part of God’s creation.
85. Matt. 4:1.
86. Mark 1:12-13.
87. Luke 4:1-2.
88. Luke 4:13.
89. Job 1:12.
90. Job 2:6.
798 Notes to Number 59 (Part II)

91. Job 16:12.

92. Job 10:3.
93. John 19:11.
94. Tob. 2:12.
95. Jas. 5:11.
96. I Tim. 4:4.
97. Eccles. 3:11.
98. Wisd. 12:15.
99. I John 1:5.
100. Rom. 11:36.
101. Col. 1:16-17.
102. John 8:12.
103. See n. 84.
104. As in § 9.

[ill. ON THE TERMS OF UNIVERSALITY]

1. Signa universalia. As he has already said (II, 4), the author proposes
to support his concept of two creations and the threefold meaning of
“create” by showing the proper meaning of such inclusive terms as “all”
in the Scriptures. He must show that they, like “create,” have a threefold
interpretation. Cf. the discussion of the meaning of “all” in No. 58, chap.
XII.
2. Cf. Phil. 3:8.
3. Dan. 8:23.
4. Gal. 3:22.
5. Rom. 11:32.
6. I Tim. 4:4.
7. Eccles. 3:11.
8. The text reads “Jesus son of Sirach says,” but the passage is actually
from Eccles. 3:14.
9. The text reads “In the Book of Wisdom,” but the passage is actually
from Ecclus. 42:23-24.
10. Ps. 103 (A.V. 104):24.
11. Ps. 118 (A.V. 119):91.
12. Rom. 14:20.
13. Tit. 1:15.
14. Rom. 8:28.
15. Eccles. 1:2, with omissions.
16. Eccles. 1:14.
17. Eccles. 3:1-2.
18. Eccles. 3:19-20.
19. Eccles. 2:17.
20. Col. 2:20-22.
21. Phil. 3:4-8.
22. Matt. 19:21.
Notes to Number 59 (Part III) 799

23. Matt. 19:27.

24. Cf. Matt. 19:28.
25. Col. 3:8. “Detraction” is added to the verse, perhaps in recollection
of I Pet. 2:1.
26. I John 2:15-16.
27. Dan. 8:23.
28. The scriptural basis for much of the following passage is found in the
apocalyptic visions of Daniel. In orthodox as well as heretical thought, the
king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, was not uncommonly taken to personify
the devil (see references in Borst, p. 298), and the “king of a shameless
face,” now identified as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid successor to
Alexander in Syria, was often taken to be a figure of Antichrist. The “little
horn” of Dan. 8:9 is a reference to the same ruler. For a sketch of various
interpretations which have been made of Daniel’s words, see S. R. Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York, 1956),
chap. XI, esp. pp. 491-94; and Interpreter's Bible, VI, 341-54.
29. Dan. 2:37-38.
30. Dan. 8:23-25.
31. Job 12:6.
32. Cf. Dan. 8:9.
33. Dan. 8:12.
34. Job 34:29-30.
35. Gal. 3:22.
36. Rom. 11:32.
37. Ephes. 2:4.
38. Ephes. 2:5.
39. Tit. 3:5-7.
40. Wisd. 15:1.
41. Wisd. 11:24-27.
42. Wisd. 16:12.
43. Ps. 103 (A.V. 104):27-28.
44. John 12:32.
45. Reading vivificanda for iustificanda of the text because of the paral¬
lel with the second sentence in § 5 and the quotation from I Tim. 6:13 later
in § 7.
46. Col. 1:19-20. In this and the following five citations it is even more
evident than elsewhere that the scriptural quotations were chosen not so
much with an eye to the meaning of the verses in context as because they
included words such as “reconcile,” “restore,” etc., which the author wished
to emphasize.
47. Matt. 17:11.
48. Ephes. 1:9-10.
49. Apoc. 21:5.
50. Ephes. 4:10.
51. I Tim. 6:13.
800 Notes to Number 59 (Part III)
52. Reading tamen for tantum of the text.
53. Heb. 2:8, quoting Ps. 8:8 (A.V. 6).
54. I Cor. 15:26-28.
55. Ecclus. 33:15.
56. II Cor. 6:14-16.
57. Ecclus. 33:15.

[IV. A COMPEND FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF BEGINNERS]

1. Rudium: literally, “the ignorant” or “the inexperienced.” They, for
whom the author writes, are to be distinguished from his critics and op¬
ponents, who are characterized as “unlearned” and “dullards”; see Borst,
p. 279, n. 21.
2. Cf. the last paragraph in II, 11.
3. In a Catharist exposition of the Lord’s Prayer (No. 60, part B), the
heavens are considered one of the substances of God’s creation, one of the
means by which He brings other substances, such as spirit, life, and soul,
under His will. Cf. also No. 58, chap. XVII, and the commentary there on
Isa. 1:2 (“Hear, O ye heavens ...”): “Those heavens have ears for hearing,
for unless they could hear, the Lord would not say to them ‘Hear!’ ”
4. Ps. 18 (A.V. 19): 1.
5. Deut. 32:1.
6. Isa. 1:2.
7. The text reads “David,” but the quotation is actually from Jer. 22:29.
8. Ps. 76:20 (A.V. 77:19).
9. Ps. 24 (A.V. 25): 10.
10. Apoc. 5:13.
11. Ps. 26 (A.V. 27): 13.
12. Ps. 142 (A.V. 143): 10.
13. The text reads “Solomon,” but the quotation is actually from Ps. 36
(A.V. 37):29.
14. Ps. 44:7 (A.V. 45:6).
15. Matt. 5:34-35.
16. Ps. 98 (A.V. 99):5.
17. Gal. 4:9.
18. Col. 2:20-22.
19. Wisd. 1:13.
20. Heb. 6:18.
21. II Tim. 2:13.
22. Borst (p. 300) cites various contemporary authorities substantiating
the doctrine that God is not composite; see also Thomas Aquinas Summa
Theologica I, q. 3, art. 6,7: Anton C. Pegis, Basic Writings of Saint Thomas
Aquinas (2 vols., New York, 1945), I, 32-34. But Borst also remarks (p. 278,
n. 14) that the doctrine that God and His will were one had already been
repudiated by orthodox theologians in the twelfth century.
23. See above, part II, n. 70,
Notes to Number 59 (Part IV) 801

24. Ps. 51:3-5 (A.V. 52:1-3). Historically, David’s reference is to Doeg,

the Edomite who at Saul's command slew priests who supported David. But
for our author the comments are entirely directed at the evil one; see the
remarks of Borst (pp. 267, 271) on the author’s use of Old Testament
citations.
25. Apoc. 12:9. Cf. the beliefs of the heretics of Desenzano, later known
as Albanenses, as described in No. 23, § 2a, where this verse is cited in
support of the narrative of the devil’s repulse from heaven.
26. Luke 8:11-12.
27. Dan. 7:21-22. “The horn” is now generally taken as Daniel’s refer¬
ence to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Seleucid ruler of Syria and persecutor of
the Jews, but for the author of the Liber it is another symbol of the devil;
cf. part III, n. 28, above.
28. Dan. 7:24-25. Historically, the reference is still to Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, who waged campaigns against Antioch, Egypt, and Macedonia
before suppressing the Jewish religion, defiling the holy places of Jerusalem
(168 b.c.), and savagely punishing the Jews who resisted; see I Macc. 1:41-
63. Used symbolically by the author of the Liber, the verse recalls Lucifer
in Isa. 14:13-14, quoted above in II, 19.
29. Dan. 8:9-11.
30. Apoc. 12:3-4. Cf. No. 23, § 2a, where “the third part of the stars of
heaven” is taken as a reference to the angels seduced by Lucifer and em¬
bodied in his realm.
31. Apoc. 13:5-7.
32. Evidently the author had in mind the words of Paul in Ephes. 6:12,
quoted in § 7 (n. 46).
33. Ps. 51:7 (A.V. 52:5).
34. Ps. 9* (A.V. 10): 15-16.
35. Ps. 36(A.V. 37): 10.
36. Prov. 14:32.
37. Heb. 2:14.
38. Luke 1:52.
39. I Cor. 15:24,26, the words “and domination” and “of all” being
added to the biblical verses.
40. Col. 1:12,13, the words “of truth” being added to the biblical verse.
41. Col. 2:13-15.
42. Acts 26:16-18.
43. Matt. 26:55.
44. Luke 22:53.
45. On the sect name, see the introduction to No. 23 and also No. 51.
46. Ephes. 6:10-13.
47. Ephes. 6:16.
48. Following Borst (p. 284), we read coram sapientibus for the contra
sapientibus of the text.
49. The text reads “through Isaiah,” but the passage is actually from
802 Notes to Number 59 (Part IV)

Jer. 5:19 and the biblical verse reads “shall serve strangers.”
50. Isa. 45:20.
51. Isa. 26:13.
52. Ps. 80:9-10 (A.V. 81:8-9).
53. Ps. 43:21-22 (A.V. 44:20-21).
54. Ps. 46:10 (A.V. 47:9).
55. Ps. 95 (A.V. 96):5.
56. Zeph. (Soph.) 2:11.
57. Jer. 11:9-10, omitting part of v. 10, but adding the words “and adore
them.”
58. Jer. 16:11-13.
59. Mai. 2:11.
60. Mic. 4:5.
61. II Cor. 4:3-4.
62. I Cor. 8:5-6.
63. Matt. 6:24.
64. John 14:30.
65. John 12:31.
66. John 16:11.
67. Acts 4:25-27. The quotation is from Ps. 2:1-2.
68. Matt. 25:41.
69. Jude 1:6.
70. Jude 1:7.
71. Job 10:22.
72. Ezech. 35:9.
73. Ezech. 35:3-5.
74. Cf. Matt. 13:25,37,39.
75. IIThess. 1:9.
76. Matt. 25:46.
77. Mark 3:29.
78. Hab. 3:3-6.
79. Apoc. 12:9.
80. Soticitudines in the text seems clearly a mistake for solitudines [deso¬
lations], as in the quotation from Ezech. 35:9 (n. 72, above).
81. Cf. No. 51, § 19, where Rainerius Sacconi lists the names applied to
the devil by John of Lugio.
82. I Pet. 4:19.
83. From this passage it appears that the author considered his chief op¬
ponents at this point to be orthodox Christians. It may be recalled that of
all the Cathars, only the faction of Albanenses led by John of Lugio ac¬
cepted the entire Old Testament. Other radical dualists among the Albanen¬
ses and Albigenses accepted parts of the Old Testament as having been
written in the celestial world before the destruction of the heavenly Jeru¬
salem. Mitigated dualists of various sects regarded the Old Testament as of
the devil's authorship, but some of them admitted that he had put good pas-
Notes to Number 59 (Part IV) 803

sages therein, in order to deceive, and that sometimes the prophets were
inspired, without their knowledge, by the Holy Spirit; others accepted what¬
ever passages of the Old Testament were repeated in the New. Contempo¬
rary testimony on this subject will be found in Nos. 25; 38, § 10; 50; 51,
§§ 16, 20; 53; and 54, § 3. The question is discussed in Borst, pp. 156-62,
and Thouzellier, Un Traite catharey pp. 49-54.
84. Gen. 1:1-2.
85. Gen. 1:21, with omissions.
86. Gen. 1:25.
87. Gen. 1:27.
88. Mark 10:6.
89. The difference between his opponents* interpretation of the Old
Testament, which the author now proposes to give, and the spiritual inter¬
pretation adopted by John of Lugio and his followers may be illustrated by
comparing § 11 (nn. 90, 91), where Deuteronomy is cited as setting forth
the commands of an evil god, with § 1 (n. 5), where passages from Deu¬
teronomy are used to prove the existence of an intelligent spiritual creation.
90. Deut. 22:22.
91. Deut. 22:30.
92. Lev. 18:8.
93. Lev. 20:11.
94. II Kings (A.V. II Sam.) 12:9-12.
95. II Kings (A.V. II Sam.) 16:21-22.
96. Deut. 22:22.
97. I Cor. 6:9-10, omitting several phrases.
98. Ephes. 5:5, omitting a few words.
99. I Thess. 4:3.
100. Exod. 11:2-3.
101. Exod. 12:35-36.
102. Deut. 20:10-17,
103. Deut. 2:32-34.
104. Deut. 3:3-4,6-7.
105. Num. 15:32-35.
106. Exod. 23:26-27.
107. Lev. 26:7-8.
108. Num. 33:55-56.
109. Ezech. 18:20, reversing the order of phrases in the biblical verse.
110. Matt. 5:43-44; the words “to them of old,” added to the biblical
verse, recall Matt. 5:33.
111. Matt. 5:44-45.
112. John 5:19.
113. II Cor. 1:3.
114. Deut. 21:22-23; the author alters the wording but not the sense of
v. 22.
115. Gal. 3:13.
804 Notes to Number 59 (Part IV)

116. I Kings (A.V. I Sam.) 16:14.

117. Idem, 16:23.
118. Judg. 9:22-23.
119. Cf. John 14:17.
120. The text reads “fourth book,’* but the quotation is actually from
III Kings (A.V. I Kings) 22:19-23.
121. Gen. 13:14-15.
122. Gen. 13:17.
123. Deut. 1:8.
124. Acts 7:3-5, quoting Gen. 12:1.
125. Note the contradiction between this passage and that in § 10, which
declares that the evil god is discerned only through his works.
126. Gen. 32:30.
127. Exod. 24:9-10.
128. Exod. 33:11.
129. Num. 12:7-8.
130. John 1:18.
131. The text reads “second Epistle,” but the quotation is actually from
I Tim. 1:17.
132. Col. 1:15.

[V. AGAINST THE GARATENSES]

1. On the name, see p. 42, above. The form “Garatenses” is found only
here and in certain papal bulls.
2. The editor notes at this point a lacuna in the manuscript. There is a
distinct break in the thought, and what follows does not constitute a sen¬
tence.
3. Baptizatos, meaning “all Christians,” although the word usually refers
to converts.
4. Dondaine (Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 28) and Borst (p. 305) agree
that the mention in the first sentence of a further rebuttal and this reference
to an earlier discussion point to a part of the author's work which is now
missing.
5. Note the language here applied to the action of the devil: “forming” or
“making,” not “creating.” See part I, n. 28.
6. Gen. 1:28.
7. Gen. 1:22.
8. Gen. 1:26.
9. Gen. 1:25, omitting a few words.
10. Gen. 2:22.
11. Gen. 2:24.
12. Mark 10:6-8.
13. Gen. 1:1-2.
14. Gen. 1:21.
15. Gen. 1:27.
Notes to Number 59 (Part VI) 805

16. Gen. 2:3.

17. Gen. 14:18-20.
18. De omni creatione, but the author is less interested in discussing
creation than in ridiculing the Garatenses.
19. John 1:3.
20. Acts 17:23-24,26.
21. Acts 4:24.
22. Apoc. 14:7.
23. Heb. 3:4.
24. That is, orthodox Christians.
25. Reading vos (as corrected by Borst, p. 285) for nos of the text.
26. I Tim. 4:1-4.
27. Job 2:3.
28. Ps. 7:17 (A.V. 16).
29. Only three letters of the name appear in the manuscript, and the in¬
dividual has not been identified. Borst (pp. 236, n. 8; 262) suggests that he
might have succeeded Nazarius as bishop of the Concorezzenses after 1235.
30. Cf. Gen. 1:1,21,27; 2:7.
31. Seen. 29.
32. He is not otherwise known.
33. The heading was supplied by Dondaine.
34. The passage beginning with the words “of the Most Holy Creator”
and ending with “given form” is in the margin of the manuscript in a hand
different from that which wrote the text and was omitted from the body of
the treatise by the editor. We include it, however, for the “new souls” in the
following phrase seems to require this explanation. Cf. Borst, p. 285.
35. Cf. Rom. 1:32.

[vi. on will]
1. In the following paragraphs the author returns to a theme he had dis¬
cussed in I, 18: the necessity of potency, knowledge, and desire on the part
of those who are to achieve salvation.
2. Borst (p. 307) cites Aristotle Metaphysica in.iv: “For it is that which
exists potentially and not in complete reality that is indeterminate” {Works
of Aristotle, ed. by Smith and Ross, VIII, 1007b28), as well as comparable
passages from Richard of St. Victor and Ibn Gabirol.
3. Secunda notula hec est. Under this heading, the author touches again
on points discussed in I, 18 (the example of Peter’s death), and § 4 (God’s
foreknowledge).
4. The editor (Un Traite neo-manicheen, p. 141, n. 19) remarks that this
seems not to be from Aristotle and suggests a passage from Ibn Gabirol
Fons vitae m.57, as a possible source. Borst (p. 308) lists a number of com¬
parable passages from Aristotle, St. Augustine, William of Auvergne, and
Ibn Gabirol.
5. Dan. 13:42.
806 Notes to Number 59 (Part VI)
6. De sententia, that is, the concept of free will. The author now seeks to
show, in language reminiscent of I, 11, that free will is incompatible with
the theories of daily creation of new souls and the Last Judgment held by
its advocates.
7. Three, seven, or twelve years were more commonly given as the ages
at which a child progressed from one stage of growth to another. See Du
Cange, s.v. “ablactatio,” and Borst, p. 308.
8. Matt. 25:34-35.
9. Matt. 25:41-42, omitting part of v. 41.

[vn. on persecutions]
1. De persecution, corrected by Borst (p. 285) to de percutione.
2. Matt. 26:31; Zach. 13:7.
3. John 19:11.
4. Datum dixit et non datum quasi dicat: nisi hoc esset tibi concessum.
5. Isa. 53:8.
6. Matt. 26:56.
7. See Dondaine, Un TraitS neo-manicheen, pp. 11, 12-13.
8. II Tim. 3:1-5.
9. Matt. 24:24. Beginning with this verse, the edited text gives only the
first and last words of each scriptural quotation. However, the notes in
Borst, pp. 308-10, make it possible to quote them in full.
10. Rom. 1:28-31.
11. II Pet. 2:1-3.
12. II Tim. 3:13.
13. Acts 20:28-31.
14. Heb. 11:32-40.
15. Matt. 5:12.
16. Acts 7:51-53. The text changes the wording from “the Just One” in
v. 52.
17. Matt. 23:29-39.
18. Jas. 5:10-11.
19. Matt. 2:13-15.
20. Luke 2:33-35.
21. Matt. 20:17-19 and 26:2, respectively.
22. John 8:58-59.
23. John 11:47-53.
24. John 7:7.
25. John 15:17-21.
26. Apoc. 12:4.
27. Jas. 5:5-6.
28. Acts 2:22-24.
29. Acts 2:36.
30. Acts 3:12-21.
31. Acts 4:24-28.
Notes to Number 59 (Part VII) 807

32. Acts 5:29-33.

33. Acts 10:36-43.
34. Acts 13:26-30.
35. I Pet. 4:1-2.
36. Mark 14:33-34.
37. Mark 15:33-34.
38. Mark 15:37.
39. Matt. 27:38.
40. Matt. 27:50.
41. Luke 23:46.
42. Acts 24:14.
43. Acts 28:22.
44. Matt. 5:10-12.
45. Matt. 10:16-25.
46. John 16:20-22.
47. Matt. 24:4-13.
48. Apoc. 2:10.
49. John 15:17-21.
50. John 17:13-16.
51. I John 3:13-14.
52. I Pet. 4:12-19.
53. Acts 26:9-11.
54. I Pet. 2:19-25.
55. Acts 8:1.
56. Rom. 8:35-39, adding “virtues” to v. 38.
57. I Pet. 1:6-7.
58. Acts 23:1-2.
59. I Cor. 4:11-14.
60. I Pet. 3:13-14.
61. I Cor. 15:9.
62. II Cor. 4:8-11. The text in w. 10 and 11 does not accord exactly
with the Vulgate (cf. Borst, p. 310), We follow the wording of the Douay
translation.
63. Ephes. 6:10-18.
64. II Cor. 1:3-11, omitting part of v. 6.
65. Gal. 1:13-14.
66. The author omits from the biblical text the phrase in brackets, which
we supply to preserve the sense of the passage. That Paul is satirizing the
claims of false apostles is clear in the context of II Cor. 11:12. Perhaps the
author was reluctant to designate Paul’s detractors as “ministers of Christ.”
67. II Cor. 11:21-29.
68. IIThess. 1:4-7.
69. I Tim. 1:12-13.
70. I Thess. 2:14-16.
71. I Thess. 3:2-5.
808 Notes to Number 59 (Part VII)
72. I Cor. 15:19.
73. Phil. 1:28-30.
74. II Tim. 3:10-12.

60. THE CATHARIST CHURCH AND ITS

INTERPRETATION OF THE LORD’S PRAYER

1. In Ussher’s library were eight other volumes in the same language;

they contained Waldensian literature and were also collected in the early
seventeenth century. Before Venckeleer’s study the manuscript with which
we are concerned, like the others, was regarded as Waldensian in origin.
(See, for example, Mario Esposito, “Sur quelques manuscrits de l’ancienne
litterature religieuse des Vaudois du Pi6mont,” RHE, XLVI [1951], 127-59,
esp. 131-43.) The last folios in that manuscript contain a short passage
which we have not translated because it repeats a theme more fully devel¬
oped in part B and seems to have been composed primarily to fill up the
blank pages in the manuscript volume (see Venckeleer, “Un Recueil cathare,
I: Une apologie,” RBPH, XXXVIII [1960], 818).
2. Venckeleer judges both to be written in the same dialect, that charac¬
teristic of the Dauphin^ (ibid., p. 820).
3. This is in contradiction to the statement in the ritual in Latin (No. 57,
part A) that the believer should not scorn his earlier baptism, even though
it was insufficient for his salvation. The present treatise has another polemi¬
cal passage, in chapter X, against die Roman Church for its persecution of
true Christians.
4. Venckeleer, “Un Recueil cathare, I: Une apologie,” RBPH, XXXVIII
(1960), 832-33. Ussher’s manuscript was copied before 1375/76 (ibid.,
p. 819).
5. See Borst, pp. 159-60, and the sources there cited.
6. Adversus Catharos et Vaiderises, ed. by Ricchini, p. 231. Moneta adds
that these heretics erroneously supposed that John was not born of a mortal
male parent but of the Holy Spirit.
7. See No. 51, §§24 and 17. The doctrine of John of Lugio that the
career of John the Baptist occurred in a world superior to this earth is not
in point, for the present treatise clearly refers to affairs in this world. By
the early fourteenth century even some radical dualists in southern France
had come to accept John the Baptist as good and divinely inspired (Borst,
p. 160, n. 17).
8. Venckeleer’s date ante quern, 1240 (“Un Recueil cathare, I: Une
apologie,” RBPH, XXXVIII [1960], 833-34), is based on his conclusion
that Moneta of Cremona knew and used a prototype of this treatise. How¬
ever, the evidence Venckeleer cites—passages in Moneta’s work which re¬
semble those on persecution here—is not conclusive, for the necessity of
enduring suffering was a common doctrine among the Cathars and their
Notes to Number 60 (Introduction) 809

analogy of themselves as sheep among wolves was not at all unusual (see,
for example, No. 5; No. 15, part A; and No. 59, part VII). Also, the further
assertion by Venckeleer (p. 834) that Moneta was the first “inquisitor” to
notice a heretical argument for spiritual baptism which was based on Acts
8:14-17 (see the Vindication, chap. XI) ignores the reference to that argu¬
ment in the works of Alan of Lille (Migne, PL, CCX, 351) and James
Capelli (ed. by Bazzocchi, p. CXL). It was probably a point often made and
Moneta could have found the argument elsewhere than in the Vindication.
9. Venckeleer (“Un Recueil cathare, II: Une glose,” RBPH, XXXIX
[1961], 792, n. 3) suggests this also, for reasons not stated.
10. For heretical attitudes toward the Old Testament, see No. 59, part
IV, n. 83.
11. See n. 7, above. Is it possible that this treatise originated among the
Concorezzenses of Lombardy and that the present Provencal text is a trans¬
lation of a Latin original? Perhaps expert examination of the quotations
from the Bible would show whether they belong to a recognizable tradition
of vernacular Bibles or were a translator’s own rendering from a Latin text
of the Bible.
12. Both singular and plural forms of these terms are used: “The char¬
ities” are said to influence other substances, and “charity” is the supersub-
stantial bread; “lives” are associated with spirits, but the Psalmist speaks of
his “life,” etc.
13. Venckeleer, “Un Recueil cathare, II: Une glose,” RBPH, XXXIX
(1961), 785-89, describes the treatise chapter by chapter.
14. See part B, chap. I, esp. n. 30.
15. On the significance of “Amen,” see also part B, n. 247.
16. Of a total of approximately two hundred and thirty biblical verses
cited in the gloss, one fifth are from Psalms.
17. Quoting Isa. 10:12-14; Mic. 5:6; Ps. 142:1,3; Lam. 1:10; 4:12; 2:7.
Cf. the style of No. 58, chap. XVI, although there is no similarity in the
scriptural citations.
18. On other terms for the evil one, see part B, n. 216.
19. See part B, n. 186.
20. See Matt. 26:39—“Let this chalice pass from me; nevertheless not as
I will, but as Thou wilt.”
21. Cf. the gloss in the Latin ritual (No. 57, part A), in which “supersub-
stantial bread” is the law of Christ, the spiritual meaning of the New Testa¬
ment. The scriptural basis for that exposition is of course quite different
from the one employed here.
22. See Osee 11:4—“Draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bands
of love.”
23. “Un Recueil cathare, II: Une glose,” RBPH, XXXIX (1961), 790-92.
24. Cf. No. 51, §§ 21, 22.
25. Is it possible that this gloss was composed by someone influenced by
Catharist thought but not a member of an active group, perhaps such a
810 Notes to Number 60 (Introduction)

person as would have been attracted by the strong current of mysticism in

the later Middle Ages, who may have been influenced by the surviving
traces of Catharism? We have no evidence to support such a suggestion
except the general impression given by the work.

A. A VINDICATION OF THE CHURCH OF GOD

1. Acts7;48.
2. Matt. 28:20.
3. John 14:23.
4. John 14:15-18.
5. I Cor. 3:16-17.
6. I Cor. 6:19.
7. II Cor. 6:16-18.
8. I Tim. 3:14-15.
9. Heb. 3:6.
10. Matt. 16:18.
11. Acts 9:31.
12. Matt. 18:15-17.
13. Ephes. 5:25-27.
14. Matt. 10:20.
15. John 20:22-23.
16. Cf. Matt. 10:1.
17. Mark 3:15.
18. Luke 9:1.
19. Matt. 18:17-20.
20. I Pet. 3:12.
21. Jas. 5:16.
22. Mark 11:24.
23. Mark 16:17-18.
24. Jas. 5:14-15.
25. John 20:23.
26. John 17:20-21.
27. Matt. 28:20.
28. Matt. 24:34.
29. Matt. 19:17,18.
30. Matt. 5:21-22.
31. Rom. 13:9.
32. I John 3:15.
33. Apoc. 22:15.
34. Apoc. 13:10.
35. Apoc. 21:8.
36. Rom. 1:29,32.
37. Matt. 19:18.
38. Matt. 5:27-28.
39. Matt. 15:19-20.
Notes to Number 60 (Part A) 811

40. The text reads “Book of Wisdom,” but the correct citation is Prov.
6:32.
41. The text reads “Philippians,” but the correct citation is Ephes. 5:3.
42. Ephes. 5:5.
43. Gal. 5:19,21.
44. The text reads “Ephesians,” but the correct citation is I Cor. 6:9-10.
45. Heb. 13:4.
46. Apoc. 22:15.
47. Apoc. 21:8. The last words in the heretical text read la sa mort.
48. Matt. 19:18.
49. Ephes. 4:28.
50. Cf. Rom. 13:9 and Exod. 20:17.
51. I Pet. 4:15.
52. Matt. 19:18.
53. I Pet. 3:10.
54. Rom. 13:9.
55. Ephes. 4:25.
56. Apoc. 21:27.
57. Apoc. 22:15.
58. Apoc. 21:8.
59. Col. 3:9.
60. Wisd. 1:11.
61. Matt. 5:34-36.
62. Matt. 5:37.
63. Ibid.
64. Matt. 6:10. On the devil identified as evil, see chap. VIII of part B,
and also No. 59, II, 11. The phrase “Deliver us from evil,” is here written
in Latin, the language in which the Cathars said the Lord’s Prayer.
65. This argument is often found in the discussion of oaths by Catholic
polemicists. See these examples: the treatise under the name of Bonacursus,
chap. X (Migne, PL, CCIV, 783-84); Alan of Lille Quadripartita ii.xix
(Migne, PL, CCX, 394); Prevostin of Cremona (?) Summa contra hereticos,
chap. XVIII [B] (ed. by Garvin and Corbett, pp. 214, 216); all earlier than
Ermengaud Contra hereticos, chap. XVIII (Migne, PL, CCIV, 1271; cited
by Venckeleer, “Un Recueil cathare, I: Une apologie,” RBPH, XXXVIII
[1960], 832); Georgius Disputatio, chap. XI (Marine and Durand, Thesau¬
rus novus anecdotorum, V, 1737-40; James Capelli Summa contra hereticos
(ed. by Bazzocchi, p. CLXXXI); and Moneta of Cremona Adversus Catharos
et Valdenses (ed. by Ricchini, p. 463).
66. Rom. 4:15.
67. Aisicom es.
68. Jas. 5:12.
69. Jas. 1:26.
70. Ephes. 4:29.
71. Ephes. 4:31.
812 Notes to Number 60 (Part A)

72. Col. 3:8.

73. I Pet. 3:9-10.
74. Matt. 12:36-37.
75. Matt. 25:31,32.
76. Matt. 25:34.
77. Matt. 25:41.
78. Jas. 2:10-11.
79. Matt. 12:33.
80. Cf. John 10:38.
81. I Pet. 2:21-22. The heretical text substitutes the pronouns “us” and
“we” for the biblical “you.”
82. Cf. Ephes. 1:22-23.
83. I Cor. 12:27.
84. I Cor. 6:15.
85. I John 3:6.
86. I John 2:6.
87. I John 1:6-7.
88. I John 3:7.
89. Cf. with the following, No. 59, VII, and the much earlier comments
in Nos. 5 and 16 on the desire of heretics to die in torment or to be perse¬
cuted; also their words, quoted by Eberwin to St. Bernard (No. 15, part A):
“We, the poor of Christ ... flee from city to city like sheep amidst wolves
and are persecuted as were the apostles and martyrs ... because we are not
of this world.” In discussing this subject Moneta of Cremona (Adversus
Catharos et Valdenses, ed. by Ricchini, pp. 393, 514) uses some phrases
which resemble those of the present tract (see Venckeleer, “Un Recueil
cathare, I: Une apologie,” RBPH, XXXVIII [1960], 833).
90. John 15:20.
91. Matt. 5:10-12.
92. Matt. 10:16.
93. Matt. 10:22-23.
94. Rom. 8:36.
95. John 10:32.
96. John 10:33.
97. II Tim. 3:12.
98. John 16:2.
99. Matt. 23:34.
100. Acts 14:21.
101. I John 3:13.
102. With the following comments, cf. the discourses in the rituals in
Latin and in Provensal (No. 57, parts A and B).
103. Matt. 3:11.
104. Matt. 28:19.
105. Mark 15:15-16.
106. Mark 16:16.
Notes to Number 60 (Part B) 813

107. John 4:1-2.

108. Mark 1:8.
109. John 1:31-34.
110. Ephes. 4:5.
111. Acts 19:1-6.
112. Acts 8:14-17.
113. II Tim. 1:6.
114. Cf. Acts 19:11-19.
115. Matt. 28:19-20.
116. Cf. I Pet. 3:20-21.
117. This final phrase is in Latin.

B. A GLOSS ON THE LORD’S PRAYER

1. The beginning of the treatise is missing from the manuscript.
2. Jer. 31:8-9. “In prayer” is substituted for the biblical “in mercy.”
There are numerous small differences between the wording of the biblical
passages in the text and the wording of the Vulgate. Only those which sig¬
nificantly affect the meaning will be noted.
3. Jer. 29:10,12-14.
4. Luke 19:10.
5. Parlant. This is one of a few places in which it has been necessary to
alter a verb form to allow a grammatical sentence in English.
6. John 16:20.
7. Luke 18:1.
8. Matt. 26:41.
9. This, like all the phrases of the Lord’s Prayer which begin the chapters,
is written in Latin in the manuscript.
10. Ps. 140 (A.V. 141):2.
11. Jas. 1:17.
12. I Cor. 13:10.
13. II Cor. 1:3.
14. Perhaps Ps. 106 (A.V. 107):8.
15. Cf. Heb. 12:9.
16. Car vistas eran. The meaning of this phrase escapes us.
17. Ephes. 3:15; 4:6.
18. Ps. 122 (A.V. 123): 1.
19. I John 4:8,16.
20. Ps. 18 (A.V. 19):7.
21. Cf. John 16:27.
22. John 16:28.
23. John 3:13.
24. Cf. John 14:10.
25. John 10:38.
26. Ephes. 4:6.
27. Rom. 11:36.
814 Notes to Number 60 (Part B)

28. Acts 17:28.

29. John 17:20-21.
30. From The Vision of Isaiah (No. 56, part A), chap. Ill, vv. 7-8. We
supply the words in brackets to give proper meaning to the passage.
31. Isa. 45:8.
32. Lo sperit del noster primer format, i.e., the spirit of the psalmist
David. See chap. IV.
33. Cant. 5:2.
34. Jas. 1:17.
35. Dan. 7:13.
36. Apoc. 1:7.
37. Ps. 67 (A.V. 68):35.
38. This reflects a doctrine revealed in the Bogomil Secret Supper (No.
56, part B, § 9) and attested by witnesses before the Inquisition: The fallen
angels had lost the right to say the Lord’s Prayer, and no one on earth had
the power to say the Prayer except those who were “in the way of truth.”
Others who did so committed a mortal sin. God was Father only of the
Good Men (perfected heretics), for He was God only of truth and justice.
For other men to address him as “our Father” was to sin by telling a lie
(Dollinger, Beitrdge, II, 159, 199, 212, 239). In another document a heretic
paraphrasing The Vision of Isaiah revealed that because he had doubted,
God refused to let him use the phrase “our Father” {ibid., p. 210).
39. Ezech. 36:22.
40. Rom. 2:24.
41. Isa. 65:24.
42. Ezech. 36:23-24.
43. Deut. 32:5.
44. Matt. 26:39.
45. Luke 22:42.
46. John 17:19.
47. Heb. 13:12.
48. Rom. 4:8.
49. Rom. 11:29.
50. Isa. 9:8.
51. Ps. 13 (A.V. 14):7.
52. Isa. 29:22-23.
53. Ezech. 36:8-10.
54. Ps. 71 (A.V. 72):3.
55. Ps. 120 (A.V. 121): 1.
56. Ps. 86 (A.V. 87): 1.
57. John 6:44.
58. Cf. Deut. 32:9.
59. Isa. 19:25.
60. Osee 11:4.
61. Col. 3:14.
Notes to Number 60 (Part B) 815

62. Ps. 15 (A.V. 16):6.

63. Ps. 139:6 (A.V. 140:5).
64. Ps. 118 (A.V. 119):61.
65. Ps. 115 (A.V. 116): 16.
66. Isa. 5:18.
67. Acts 20:22.
68. Ps. 65 (A.V. 66):9.
69. Mark 11:9-10.
70. Dan. 2:44.
71. Ps. 144 (A.V. 145): 10-13.
72. Apoc. 1:4-6.
73. Apoc. 5:8-10. We use “elders” in place of the “ancients” of the
Douay translation.
74. Ps. 67:33 (A.V. 68:32).
75. Ps. 21 (A.V. 22):23.
76. Cf. II These. 1:10.
77. Matt. 24:31.
78. Apoc. 22:12.
79. I Thess. 4:12-17.
80. Gloria here, but in a subsequent quotation of this verse (see n. 98),
the biblical reading {majestat) is followed.
81. Matt. 24:30-31.
82. Matt. 24:3.
83. Cf. Rom. 2:6-10.
84. Ps. 79:2-3 (A.V. 80:1-2).
85. Apoc. 22:17.
86. Apoc. 22:20.
87. Apoc. 3:11.
88. Apoc. 22:12.
89. Jas. 5:8.
90. Heb. 10:37.
91. Cf. Isa. 9:7.
92. Ephes. 1:20-21. We use “dominations” in place of the “dominions”
of the Douay translation.
93. Col. 1:16.
94. Col. 2:15.
95. Apoc. 1:8; 21:6.
96. Mai. 3:1-2.
97. II Pet. 3:4.
98. Matt. 24:29-30,37.
99. Matt. 25:31-32.
100. Apoc. 1:7.
101. Apoc. 16:15.
102. I Thess. 5:5,8.
103. II Pet. 3:10.
816 Notes to Number 60 (Part B)

104. I Thess. 5:2.

105. I Thess. 4:3-6; 5:14-18.
106. Ephes. 1:11.
107. John 6:38-40.
108. Cf. Rom. 12:2; Ephes. 5:17.
109. Heb. 13:21.
110. Matt. 11:25.
111. Ecclus. 16:18-19.
112. Ps. 62 (A.V. 63):4-5.
113. Ps. 40:5 (A.V. 41:4).
114. Ps. 119 (A.V. 120):2.
115. Ps. 114 (A.V. 116):7.
116. Ps. 145 (A.V. 146): 1.
117. Ps. 102 (A.V. 103): 1,4.
118. On the phrase “supersubstantial bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, see
also No. 57, part A, esp. n. 8.
119. Cf. I Cor. 10:17.
120. Ps. 106 (A.V. 107):5.
121. Lam. 4:4.
122. Ps. 97 (A.V. 98): 3.
123. Luke 1:53.
124. John 6:51.
125. Isa. 9:6.
126. Cf. I Cor. 13:4,7.
127. Job 10:12.
128. Prov. 18:14.
129. Rom. 8:26.
130. Ps. 38:8 (A.V. 39:7).
131. Ps. 138 (A.V. 139): 15.
132. Ps. 68:2-3 (A.V. 69:1-2).
133. Acts 4:24-25.
134. Ps. 138 (A.V. 139): 16.
135. Ps. 72:22.
136. Ephes. 4:9-10.
137. Ordene lo sio Fill ama e lo don de la carita a quel David.
138. I Pet. 5:10.
139. Ps. 117 (A.V. 118):24.
140. Ps. 18 (A.V. 19):3.
141. John 12:49-50.
142. Rom. 13:12.
143. Cf. Heb. 4:1-5 and Ps. 94 (A.V. 95): 11.
144. Heb. 4:6-7.
145. I Cor. 13:10.
146. I Cor. 13:1-2.
147. Matt. 5:48.
Notes to Number 60 (Part B) 817

148. Luke 11:4.

149. Isa. 43:27.
150. Luke 15:18,21.
151. Ps. 50 (A.V. 51):6.
152. Bar. 6:1.
153. Dan. 9:4,5,16. The biblical text reads: “our fathers, Jerusalem.”
154. Tit. 3:3.
155. Cf. Jer. 9:4-5.
156. Ezech. 22:6-7,11.
157. Wisd. 14:23-26.
158. Luke 6:37; Matt. 6:15.
159. Matt. 18:35.
160. Ephes. 4:32.
161. Col. 3:13.
162. II John 1:5.
163. Rom. 8:12.
164. Rom. 13:8.
165. John 15:17.
166. I John 4:11; 3:23.
167. Luke 11:4.
168. I Cor. 10:12-13.
169. Heb. 4:15. The heretical text has evesque [bishop] for the pontificem
of the Vulgate, translated in Douay and A.V. as “high priest.”
170. Heb. 2:18.
171. Wisd. 3:1,5-6.
172. Cf. Heb. 11:17.
173. I Pet. 4:12-13.
174. Jas. 1:14.
175. Matt. 4:1,3.
176. Luke 4:13.
177. I Thess. 3:5.
178. Tob. 2:12.
179. Jas. 5:10.
180. Cf. Heb. 3:9.
181. I Cor. 10:9.
182. Isa. 27:8.
183. Wisd. 3:5-6.
184. Jas. 1:12.
185. Luke 22:28-30.
186. Cf. the ritual in Latin (No. 57, part A), which also speaks of two
temptations, but in different terms.
187. Wisd. 3:5.
188. Jas. 1:12.
189. Cf. Ecclus. 4:12,16,18-21.
190. I Tim. 6:9.
818 Notes to Number 60 (Part B)

191. Apoc. 2:10.

192. Apoc. 3:10.
193. Ps. 25 (A.V. 26):2.
194. Luke 22:31-32.
195. Matt. 26:41.
196. Cf. Jer. 13:17.
197. Luke 12:32.
198. Jer. 50:33-34.
199. Matt. 6:13. Here and in the last words of this chapter, the phrase is
written in Provencal, although all other quotations of the Lord’s Prayer are
in Latin.
200. Matt. 13:19.
201. Mark 4:15.
202. Luke 8:12.
203. Matt. 13:27.
204. Matt. 13:39.
205. Omitting the redundant d'aquel mal home which occurs in the text
at this point.
206. Ps. 139:2 (A.V. 140:1).
207. Ps. 55:2 (A.V. 56:1).
208. Ps. 43 (A.V. 44):26.
209. Job 34:29-30.
210. Job 16:12.
211. Ps. 142 (A.V. 143): 1,3.
212. Lam. 1:16; 2:22.
213. Bar. 4:9-10,21,25.
214. Rom. 16:20,
215. Lam. 1:10; 4:12; 2:7.
216. See No. 51, § 20, for various designations of the devil according to
John of Lugio. The king of Assyria is not there mentioned; but in The Book
of the Two Principles (No, 59, II, 11), the evil creator is equated with the
Assyrian and is also identified with other biblical figures.
217. Cf. Ezech. 32:33; 31:8.
218. Jer. 50:17.
219. Cf. Isa. 10:12-14.
220. Ezech. 31:3-4,8-9.
221. Ezech. 32:22-23.
222. Oseell:5.
223. Mic. 5:6.
224. La cita. The biblical text has “captivity.”
225. Isa. 49:24-25.
226. Jer. 31:10-12,14.
227. II Tim. 2:26.
228. Dan. 7:17-18.
229. Luke 19:12.
Notes to Number 60 (Part B) 819

230. Apoc. 5:9-10.

231. Ps. 118 (A.V. 119):94.
232. Ps. 118 (A.V. 119): 125. “Commandments” (comandamentz) is sub¬
stituted in the heretical text for the biblical “testimonies.”
233. Rom. 14:7-8.
234. Wisd. 15:1-2.
235. Ps. 37:11 (A.V. 38:10).
236. Ps. 30:11 (A.V. 31:10).
237. Lam. 1:14.
238. Ezech. 18:4.
239. Ps. 107:2 (A.V. 108:1).
240. Ps. 56:9 (A.V. 57:8).
241. Ps. 29:12-13 (A.V. 30:11-12).
242. Als segles, literally “forever”; see n. 245.
243. Ps. 43:2 (A.V. 44:1).
244. Ps. 21:5-6 (A.V. 22:4-5).
245. Segles dels segles for the saecula saeculorum of the Vulgate, usually
rendered in English as “forever and ever.”
246. Cf. Apoc. 5:12-13.
247. Henri Gr6goire, “Cathares d’Asie Mineure, dltalie, et de France,”
in Memorial Louis Petit, pp. 144-55, cites a fourth-century Greek epitaph
(of a priest of the ancient sect of Cathari), in which the Greek words for
“ninety-nine” refer to Christ; the numeral “99” in many ancient inscriptions
has been found to mean “Amen.” Gr6goire concludes that the use of
“Amen” in the epitaph constitutes a reference to Christ as the first angel,
a personage second only to God, as in John 3:14, “saith the Amen ... who
is the beginning of the creation of God.” In a manuscript probably of the
twelfth century Gr6goire found the same term used in an anathema against
the Bogomils and argues that this is evidence for a continuity of the
Catharist name and tradition from the fourth century to the twelfth. In the
present treatise, “Amen” designates the “spirit of the first form,” which in
turn is equated with the psalmist David. If this symbolism was derived from
the ancient tradition cited by Gr6goire, it had evidently undergone con¬
siderable alteration. See also the disparaging remarks of Borst (p. 241, n. 5)
on Gregoire’s thesis.
248. Apoc. 1:7.
249. Heb. 2:15.
This bibliography is not a complete list of works cited in the notes but in¬
cludes those works which have been most referred to or which are especially
valuable in connection with the contents of this volume. Publications which
contain texts translated in this volume are preceded by *.

Abelard, Peter. Introductio ad theologiam. In Migne, PL, CLXXVIII, 979-

1112.
Ach6ry, Luc d’, ed. Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis
delituerant Spicilegium. 13 vols. Paris, 1657-1677. New ed. by L. F. J. de
la Barre. Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum .... 3 vols.
Pads, 1723.
*Acta concilii Lumbariensis. In Bouquet, Recueil, XIV, 430-34.
*Acta sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur vel a catholicis scriptoribus
celebrantur .... New ed. by Joannes Carnandet. 65 vols. in 67. Paris,
1863-1931.
*Acta synodi Atrebatensi a Gerardo Cameracensi et Atrebatensi episcopo
celebrata anno 1025. In Fredericq, Corpus, I, 1-5.
Actus beati Francisci et sociorum eius. Ed. by Paul Sabatier. (Collection
d'6tudes et de documents sur l’histoire religieuse et litt6raire du moyen
age, IV.) Paris, 1902.
* Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium. Ed. by G. Busson and
A. Ledru. (Archives historiques du Maine, II.) Le Mans, 1901.
*Ad6mar of Chabannes. Chronique. Ed. by Jules Chavanon. (Collection de
textes pour servir a l’etude et k l’enseignement de l’histoire, XX.) Paris,
1897.
*Alan of Lille. De fide catholica contra haereticos sui temporis. In Migne,
PL, CCX, 305-430.
-Summa de arte praedicatoria. In Migne, PL, CCX, 109-98.
Albe, Ed. “L’H6r6sie albigeoise et 1’Inquisition en Quercy,” Revue d’histoire
de Yeglise de France, I (1910), 271-93, 412-28.
Alberic of Trois-Fontaines. Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium a
monachi novi monasterii Hoiensis interpolata, Ed. by Paul Scheffer-
Boichorst, in MGH SS, XXIII, 631-950.
Alphand6ry, Paul. “Le Gnosdcisme dans les sectes medi6vales latines,”
RHPR, VII (1927), 394-411.
-Les IdSes morales chez les heterodoxes latins au debut du XIII9
Bibliography
sticle. (Biblioth&que de l’Ecole des hautes etudes, Sciences religieuses,
XVI, fasc. 1.) Paris, 1903.
- “Sur les Passagiens,” Revue des etudes juives, LXXXII (1926), 353-61.
-“De quelques faits de proph6tisme dans les sectes latins ant6rieures au
Joachimisme,” RHR9 LII (1905), 177-218.
- “Remarques sur le type sectaire dans l’heresiologie medi6vale latine,”
in Transactions of the Third International Congress for the History of
Religions, II, 354-57. Oxford, 1908.
- “Traces de manich6isme dans le moyen age latin (VIe-XIIe siecle),”
RHPR, IX (1929), 451-67.
Alverny, Maria-Th6r6se d\ “Un Fragment du proems des Amauriciens,”
AHDLMA, XXVI (1951), 325-36.
American Waldensian Aid Association. An Annotated Reading List on the
Waldenses: Selected Books and Articles in English. New York, 1933.
Anagnine, Eugenio. Dolcino e il movimento ereticale alVinizio del trecento.
Florence, 1964.
Andreas of Fleury. Vita Gauzlini abbatis Floriacensis. Ed. by P. Ewald, in
Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, III
(1878), 351-83.
Anichkof, Eugenii. “Les Survivances manich6ennes en pays slave et en
Occident,” Revue des etudes slaves, VIII (1928), 203-26.
Annales Brunwilarensis. Ed. by Wilhelm Pertz, in MGH SS, XVI, 724-28.
Annales Magedeburgenses. Ed. by Wilhelm Pertz, in MGH SS, XVI, 107-96.
Annales de Margan. Ed. by H. R. Luard, in Annales monastici, I, 3-40.
Annales monasterii de Theokesberia. Ed. by H. R. Luard, in Annales monas¬
ticf, I, 43-180.
Annales monastici. Ed. by H. R. Luard. (Rolls Series, XXXVI.) 5 vols.
London, 1864-1869.
Annales Parchenses. Ed. by Wilhelm Pertz, in MGH SS, XVI, 598-608.
* Anselm of Alessandria. Tractatus de haereticis. Ed. by Dondaine, in “La
Hi6rarchie cathare, II,” AFP, XX (1950), 308-24.
Anselm of Li&ge. See Heriger and Anselm.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down
to a.d. 325. American ed. by A. C. Coxe. 8 vols. Buffalo, 1885-1886.
De antiquis legibus liber. Ed. by Thomas Stapleton. (Camden Society,
XXXIV.) London, 1846.
Aquinas, Thomas. See Thomas Aquinas.
Ascension of Isaiah. See Vision of Isaiah.
Augustine, Saint. Epistolae. In Migne, PL, XXXIII, 61-1094.
- The De haeresibus of Saint Augustine. Trans., with introduction and
commentary, by Rev. Liguori C. Muller. (Catholic University of America,
Patristic Studies, XC.) Washington, 1956.
- De utilitate credendi ad Honoratum. In Migne, PL, XLII, 63-92.
Babut, E. C. Priscillien et le Priscillienisme. (Biblioth&que de l’Ecole des
hautes 6tudes, Sciences historiques et philologiques, XLXIX.) Paris, 1909.
822 Bibliography

Badham, Francis Pritchett, and F. C. Conybeare. “Fragments of an Ancient

(?Egyptian) Gospel Used by the Cathars of Albi,” The Hibbert Journal,
XI (1913), .805-18.
Balme, Francois, P. Lelaidier, and A. I. Collomb. Cartulaire ou histoire
diplomatique de Saint Dominique, avec illustrations documentaires ....
3 vols. Paris, 1893-1901.
Baluze, Stephen, ed. Miscellanea novo ordine digesta et non paucis ineditis
monumentis ... aucta. New ed. by Joannes Dominicus Mansi. 4 vols.
Lucca, 1761-1764.
Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 2d ed. rev. enl.
Vol. I- . New York, 1952-,
Bastard, Lfon de. “Recherches sur l’insurrection communale de V6zelay au
XIIe sifccle,” BEC, 3d ser., II (1851), 339-65.
Bates, M. Searle. Religious Liberty: An Inquiry. New York, 1935.
Baumker, Clemens. Ein anonymer, wahrscheinlich dem Garnerius von
Rochefort zugehoriger Traktat aus dem Anfang des Kill Jahrhunderts.
(Beitrage zur Geschichte des Philosophie des Mittelalters, XXIV, fasc.
5-6.) Munster, 1926.
- “Handschriftliches zu den Werken des Alanus,” in Philosophisches
Jahrbuch der Gorres-Gesellschaft, VI (1893), 163-75, 417-29; VII (1894),
169-85.
Bazzocchi, Dino. La Eresia catara: Saggio storico filosofico con in appen-
dice Disputationes nonnullae adversus haereticos. Essay and appendix
published separately. Bologna, 1919, 1920.
B6dier, Joseph, and Paul Hazard. Litterature frangaise. New ed. by Pierre
Martino. 2 vols. Paris, 1948-1949.
Belperron, Pierre. La Croisade contre les Albigeois et Vunion du Languedoc
& la France (1209-1249). Paris, 1942.
Berger, Samuel. “Les Bibles proven?ales et vaudoises,” Romania, XVIII
(1889), 353-422.
- “Nouvelles Recherches sur les Bibles proven?ales et catalanes,” Ro-
mania, XIX (1890), 505-61.
Bernard Gui. Liber sententiarum inquisitionis Tholosanae ab anno Christi
MCCCVll ad annum MCCCXXIU. In Limborch, Historia inquisitionis.
*
Practica inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis. Ed. by C61estin Douais.
Paris, 1886. Part V ed. by Guillaume Mollat as Manuel de Vinquisiteur.
(Les Classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen age, VIII, IX.) 2 vols.
Paris, 1926-1927.
♦Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint. Epistolae 241, 242. In Migne, PL, CLXXXII,
434-37.
*
-Sermones super Cantica canticorum. Ed. by Jean Leclercq, C. H.
Talbot, and H. M. Rochais. (Sancti Bernardi Opera, I-II.) 2 vols. Rome,
1957-1958.
— Saint Bernard*s Sermons on the Canticle of Canticles. Trans, by a
priest [Ailbe J. Luddy] of Mt. Melleray. 2 vols. Dublin, ca. 1920.
Bibliography 823

* Bernard of Fontcaude. Adversus Waldensium sectam liber. In Migne, PL,

CCIV, 793-840.
Bernard, Paul P. “Heresy in 14th Century Austria,” Medievalia et Huma-
nistica,, X (1956), 50-63.
Berne-Lagarde, Pierre de. Bibliographic du catharisme languedocien. (Insti-
tut des Etudes cathares, Collection de textes et documents, I.) Toulouse,
1957.
Bett, Henry. Joachim of Flora. London, 1931.
Betts, Reginald R. “Correnti religiose nazionali ed ereticali dalla fine del
secolo XIV alia meta del XV,” in Relazione del X Congresso, III, 485-
513.
Beuzart, Paul. Les Heresies pendant le moyen age et la reforme jusqu’d la
mort de Philippe //, 1598, dans la region de Douai, d*A rrasf et au pays de
VAlleu. Paris and LePuy, 1912.
Blackman, Edwin C. Marcion and His Influence. London, 1948.
Bloomfield, Morton W. “Joachim of Flora: A Critical Survey of His Canon,
Teachings, Sources, Biography and Influence,” Traditio, XIII (1957),
259-311.
- and Marjorie E. Reeves. “The Penetration of Joachism into Northern
Europe,” Speculum, XXIX (1954), 772-93.
Bohmer, Johann Friedrich. Acta imperii selecta: Urkunden deutscher
Konige und Kaiser, mit einem Anhange von Reichssachen. Innsbruck,
1870.
♦Bonacursus. Manifestatio haeresis catharorum quam fecit Bonacursus. In
Migne, PL, CCIV, 775-92.
Bonenfant, Paul. “Un Clerc cathare en Lotharingie au milieu du XIIC
stecle,” MA, LXIX (1963), 271-80.
Borst, Arno. Die Katharer. (Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae historica,
XII.) Stuttgart, 1953.
♦Bouquet, Martin, et al., eds. Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la
France. 24 vols. Paris, 1739-1904.
Bourquelot, F. “Observations sur P6tablissement de la commune de V6ze-
lay,” BEC, III (1852), 447-63.
Boussard, J. “Henri II Plantagenet et les origines de l’arm6e de metier,”
BEC, CVI (1945-1946), 189-224.
Breillat, Pierre. “Le Graal et les Albigeois,” Revue de Tarn, X (1944), 458-
67; XI (1945), 99-109, 161-71.
*Brevis summula contra herrores notatos hereticorum. Ed. by C. Douais, in
La Somme des autoritis, pp. 114-33. Ed. by C. Molinier, in “Une Texte
de Muratori,” Annales du Midi, XXII (1910), 212-16.
Broeckx, Edmund. Le Catharisme: Etude sur les doctrines, la vie religieuse
et morale, Vactivite litteraire et les vicissitudes de la secte cathare avant
4

la croisade. (Universitatis Catholicae Lovaniensis Dissertationes, 2d ser.,

VIII.) Hoogstraten, 1916.
Brooke, Christopher N. L. “The Church of the Middle Ages, 1000-1500,”
824 Bibliography
in The Layman in Christian History, pp. 111-34.
Brown, Sydney McGillvary. “Movimenti politico-religiosi a Milano ai tempi
della Pataria,” Archivio storico Lombardo, 6th ser., LVIII (1931), 227-78.
Bru, Charles P. “Elements pour une interpretation sociologique du Catha-
risme occitan,” in Nelli, Spirituality de Vh£resie, pp, 23-59.
Brunei, Clovis. “Fragment d’un abrege de theologie en ancien Provencal,”
BEC9 CXII (1954), 1-23.
*Burchard of Ursberg. Chronicon. Ed. by Oswald Holder-Egger and Ber¬
nard von Simson, in Die Chronik des Propstes Burchard von Ursberg.
(Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum.) Hanover and
Leipzig, 1916.
Burr, George Lincoln. “The Literature of Witchcraft,” in Papers of the
American Historical Association, IV (1889-1890), 237-66.
Butler, Alban. The Lives of the Saints. Ed. by Herbert Thurston and Donald
Attwater. Rev. ed. 4 vols. New York, 1956.
*Caesarius of Heisterbach. Dialogus miraculorum. Ed, by Joseph Strange.
2 vols. Cologne, 1851. Trans, by Henry von Essen Scott and C. C. Swin-
ton Bland as The Dialogue on Miracles. 2 vols. London, 1929.
Callaey, Fr6d6gand. “Lambert li Beges et les B6guines,” RHE, XXIII (1927),
254-59.
- “Olieu ou Olivi (Pierre de Jean),” DTC, XI, 982-91.
Cantor, Norman. Medieval History: The Life and Death of a Civilization.
New York and London, cl963.
Capelle, Germaine C. Autour du decret de 1210, 111: Amaury da Bene—
Etude sur son pantheisme formel. (Bibliotheque Thomiste, XVI.) Paris,
1932.
Caro Baroja, Julio. The World of the Witches. Trans, by O. N. V. Glendin-
ning. Chicago and London, cl964.
Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Con¬
stitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church. Ed.
by Charles G. Hebermann, et al. 16 vols. New York, cl907-1914.
Cauchie, Alfred H. J. La Querelle des investitures dans les dioceses de
Liege et de Cambrai, I: Les reformes gregoriennes et les agitations reac-
tionnaires (1075-1092). (University catholique, Recueil des travaux, II.)
Louvain, 1891.
Cauzons, Thomas de. Histoire de ITnquisition en France. 2 vols. Paris,
1909-1912.
Charles, R. H. See The Vision of Isaiah.
Ch£non, Emile. “L’Heresie a La Charite-sur-Loire et les d6buts de requisi¬
tion monastique dans la France du nord au XIIIe siecle,” Nouvelle revue
historique de droit frangais et etranger, XLI (1917), 299-345.
Ch6rest, Aime. Vezelay: Etude historique. 3 vols. Auxerre, 1868.
Chevalier, Jules. Memoire historique sur les heresies en Dauphine avant le
XVIe siecle, accompagne de documents inedits sur les sorciers et les
vaudois. Valence, 1890.
Bibliography 825

Chronicon Britannicum. In Bouquet, Recueil, XII, 557-58.

*Chronicon S. Andreae castri-Cameracesii. Ed. by L. C. Bethmann, in
MGH SS, VII, 526-50.
* Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis. Ed. by Georg Waitz, in MGH
SS, XXVI, 442-57.
Clasen, Claus-Peter. “Medieval Heresies in the Reformation,” Church His¬
tory, XXXII (1963), 392-414.
*Cledat, Leon. Le Nouveau Testament traduit au XIIIe sidcle en langue
provengale, suivi d*un rituel cathare. (Universite de Lyon, Biblioth&que
de la Facultd des lettres, IV.) Paris, 1887.
Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium. Fairlawn, N. J., 1957.
Comba, Emilio. Storia dei Valdesi. 4th ed. Torre Pellice, 1950. Trans, by
Teofilio E. Comba from the 2d ed. as History of the Waldenses of Italy
from Their Origin to the Reformation. London, 1889.
*Compilatio auctoritatum de sacramentis ecclesiae. Ed. by Douais, in La
Somme des autorites, pp. 56-66. Also in Leipzig, Universitats Bibliothek,
MS 894, fols. 77v-79r.
Congar, Yves M. J. “Arriana haeresis comme designation du neo-maniche-
isme au XII® stecle,” RSPT, XLIII (1959), 449-61.
- “Henri de Marcy, abbe de Clairvaux, cardinal-6veque d’Albano et
legat pontifical,” Studia Anselmiana, XLIII; Analecta monastica, V
(1958), 1-90.
Conybeare, Frederick] C. “A Hitherto Unpublished Treatise against the
Italian Manichaeans,” American Journal of Theology, III (1899), 704-28.
- trans. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of
Armenia. Oxford, 1898.
Coulton, George Gordon. The Death Penalty for Heresy from 1184 to
1921. (Medieval Studies, XVIII.) London, 1924.
- The Inquisition. New York, 1929.
-Inquisition and Liberty. London, Toronto, and New York, 1938;
reprint, Gloucester, Mass., 1960.
- From St. Francis to Dante: Translations from the Chronicle of the
Franciscan Salimbene (1221-1288) with Notes and Illustrations from
Other Medieval Sources. 2d ed. London, 1927.
David of Augsburg. De inquisitione haereticorum. In Marine and Durand,
Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, V, 1777-94. Another version ed. by
Wilhelm Preger in “Der Traktat des David von Augsburg iiber die Wal-
desier,” Abhandlungen der historischen Classe der koniglich bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, XIII (1878), 204-35.
David, Pierre. “Un Credo cathare?” RHE, XXXV (1939), 756-61.
Davis, Georgene W. The Inquisition at Albi, 1299-1300: Text of Register
and Analysis. (Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law,
DXXXVIII.) New York, 1948.
Davison, Ellen Scott. Forerunners of St. Francis, and Other Studies. Ed. by
Gertrude R. B. Richards. New York, 1927.
826 Bibliography
Delaruelle, Etienne. “Le Catharisme en Languedoc vers 1200: Une en-
qu£te,” Annales du Midi, LXXII (1960), 149-67.
“La pieta popolare nel secolo XI,” in Relazione del X Congresso, III,
309-25.
44
Delehaye, Hippolyte. Alexandre
France,” RQH, XLIX (1891), 5-61
Delisle, Leopold. “Notice sur les manuscrits de Bernard Gui,” Notices
manuscrits de la Bibliotheque nationale publies
national 1. XXVII, part 2 (1879), pp. 169-455.
♦Denifle. Heinrich Emile Chatelain. eds. Chartularium universitatis
Parisiensis. 4 vols. Paris, 1889-1897.
Denzinger, Heinrich symbolorum: Definitionum
num de rebus fidei et morum. 31st ed. im Breisgau, 1957.
Trans, by Roy J. Deferrari, from the 30th ed., as The Sources of Catholic
Dogma. St. Louis and London, 1954.
Devic, Claude, and Joseph Vaissete. Histoire generate de Languedoc. Ed. by
Auguste Molinier et at. 16 vols. Toulouse, 1872-1904.
Dickson, Marcel, and Christine Dickson. “Le Cardinal Robert de Coupon:
Sa vie,” AHDLMA, IX (1934), 53-142.
The Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. by Leslie Stephen and Sydney
Lee. 22 vols. Oxford, 1885-1901; reprints, 1921-1922, 1937-1938.
Dictionnaire de thioloeie catholiaue contenant VexDOse des doctrines de la
Ed
Mangenot Paris, 1903
Dieckhoff, August Wilhelm. Die Waldenser im Mittelalter: Zwei historische
Untersuchungen. Gottingen, 1851.
Dieudonne, Adolphe. “Hildebert de Lavardin, eveque du Mans, archeveque
de Tours (1056-1133): Sa vie, ses lettres,” Revue historique et archeolo-
gique du Maine, XLI (1896), 51-85, 179-224, 379-421; XLII (1897),
1-44, 165-205, 236-83.
Dionysius the Areopagite. The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite. Trans
by Rev. John Parker. 2 vols. London and Oxford, 1887, 1889.
Dollinger, Johann J. I. von. Beitrdge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters
2 vols. Munich, 1890. Reprint, New York, 1960.
Dondaine, Antoine. “Les Actes du concile albigeois de Saint F6lix
Caraman,” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, Vol. V. (Studi e testi,
CXXV.) Vatican City, 1946.
♦
- “Durand de Huesca et la pol£mique anti-cathare,” AFP, XXIX
(1959), 228-76.
* 4<
Hierarchie De heresi catharorum
Lombardia’; II: Le Tractatus de hereticis’ d’Anselme d’Alexandrie, O.P.;
III: Catalogue de la hierarchie cathare d’ltalie,” AFP, XIX (1949), 280-
XX
Manuel (1947), 85
194.
Bibliography 827

- “Nouvelles Sources de Phistoire doctrinale du neo-manicheisme au

moyen &ge,” RSPT, XXVIII (1939), 465-88.
- “L’Origine de Ph6r6sie m6di6vale: A propos d’un livre recent,” RSCI,
VI (1952), 47-78.
* - “Aux Origines du Valdeisme: Une profession de foi de Valdes,”
AFP, XVI (1946), 191-235.
- “Saint Pierre Martyr: Etudes,” AFP, XXIII (1953), 66-162.
* - Un Traite nto-manicheen du XIII* siecle: Le Liber de duobus
principiis, suivi d*un fragment de rituel cathare. Rome, 1939.
Dossat, Yves. “Cathares et Vaudois k la veille de la croisade albigeoise,”
RHLL, II (1945), 390-97; III (1946), 70-83.
- “Le Clerg6 meridional a la veille de la croisade albigeoise,” RHLL, I
(1944), 263-78.
- “Le Comte de Toulouse et la f6odalite languedocienne a la veille de
la croisade albigeoise,” Revue de Tarn, IX (1943), 75-90.
-Les Crises de VInquisition toulousaine au XIHe siecle (1233-1273).
Bourdeaux, 1959.
- “L’Evolution des rituels cathares,” Revue de synthese, XXIII (1948),
27-30.
-“Remarques sur un pretendu eveque cathare du Val d’Aran en 1167,”
Bulletin philologique et historique du Comite des travaux historiques et
scientifiques, Annies 1955-1956, pp. 339-47.
- “La Soci6t6 meridionale a la veille de la croisade albigeoise,” RHLL,
I (1944), 66-87.
Douais, C61estin. Documents pour servir d Vhistoire de ITnquisition dans le
Languedoc. 2 vols. (Societe de Phistoire de France, Publications,
CCXCIX, CCC.) Paris, 1900.
- “Les H6r6tiques du comt6 de Toulouse dans la premiere moitie du
XIIIe sifccle, d’apres Penquete de 1245,” Bulletin theologique, scientifique
et littdraire de ITnstitut catholique de Toulouse, new ser., Ill (1892), 160-
73, 206-9.
- “Les Heretiques du Midi au XIIIe si&cle: Cinq pieces in6dits,” Annales
du Midi, III (1891), 367-80.
* -La Somme des autorites a rusage des predicateurs meridionaux au
Xlll€ siecle, Paris, 1896.
Douie, Decima L. The Nature and Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli.
(Publications of the University of Manchester, CCXX; Historical Series,
LXI.) Manchester, 1932.
Dubarle, G. M. “Les Renards de Samson,” Revue du moyen dge latin, VII
(1951), 174-76.
Dujfcev, Ivan. “I Bogomili nei paesi slavi e la loro storia,” in Accademia
nazionale dei Lincei, Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura, Quaderno
LXII (1964): UOriente cristiano nella storia della civiltd, pp. 619-41.
* Durand of Huesca. Liber contra manicheos. In Thouzellier, Un Traite
cathare, pp. 87-113.
828 Bibliography

Duvernoy, Jean. Le Registre de VInquisition de Jacques Fournier, eveque

de Pamiers. Vols. I-II. Toulouse, 1965.
- “Un Trait6 cathare du d6but du XIIIe sifccle,” Cahiers d’etudes
cathares. 2d ser., XIII (1962), 22-54.
*Eberwin of Steinfeld. Epistola ad S. Bernardum (Ep. 472). In Migne, PL,
CLXXXII, 676-80.
Eckbert of Schonau. Sermones tredecim contra haereticos. In Migne, PL,
CXCV, 11-102.
Ehrle, Franz. “Petrus Johannis Olivi: Sein Leben und seine Schriften,”
ALKG, III (1887), 409-552.
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Ed. by James Hastings et al. 12 vols.
Edinburgh and New York, 1908-1927; reprint, 1955.
English Historical Documents, Vol. II (1042-1189). Ed. by D. C. Douglas
and G. W. Greenaway. New York and Oxford, 1953.
* Epistola ecclesiae Leodiensis ad Lucum papam II. In Martene and Durand,
Veterum scriptorum, I, 176-18.
Ermengaud of Beziers. Contra haereticos. In Migne, PL, CCIV, 1235-72;
also CLXXVIII, 1823-46.
Esnault, Renato. “Tracce ereticali nel medio evo francese,” Religio, XIV
(1938), 18-53.
Esposito, Mario. “Sur quelques ecrits concernant les h£r€sies et les here-
tiques au XII® et XIII® siecles,” RHE, XXXVI (1940), 143-62.
Evans, Austin P. “The Albigensian Crusade,” in Setton, Wolff, and Hazard,
A History of the Crusades, II, 277-324. Philadelphia, 1962.
- “Hunting Subversion in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, XXXIII (1958),
1-22.
- “Social Aspects of Medieval Heresy,” in Persecution and Liberty,
pp. 93-116.
Eymeric, Nicholas. Directorium inquisitorum. Ed. by Francis Pegna. Venice,
1609.
Farrar, Clarissa P., and Austin P. Evans. Bibliography of English Transla¬
tions from Medieval Sources. (Records of Civilization, XXXIX.) New
York, 1946.
Fedele, Pietro. Fonti per la storia di Arnaldo da Brescia. (Testi medievali
per uso delle scuole universitarie, I.) Rome, 1938.
Fliche, Augustin, Victor Martin, et al. Histoire de VEglise depuis les origines
jusqu*d nos jours. Vol. IX: Du premier concile de Latran a Vav&nement
dTnnocent III. Paris, 1944; new ed., 1953. Vol. X: La Chretientt ro-
maine. Paris, 1950.
Foreville, Raymonde. “Les Grands Courants h6retiques et les premieres
mesures generates de repression,” in Fliche and Martin, Histoire de
VEglise, Vol. IX, chap. 3.
Forg, Ludwig. Die Ketzerverfolgung in Deutschland unter Gregor IX: Ihre
Herkunft, ihre Bedeutung und ihre rechtlichen Grundlagen. (Historische
Studien, CCXVIII.) Berlin, 1932.
Fortescue, Adrian. “Canon of the Mass,” Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 255-67.
Bibliography 829
- The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. New York, 1922.
*Fredericq, Paul. Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis
Neerlandicae. 5 vols. Ghent, 1889-1906.
Frend, W. H. C. The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman
North Africa. Oxford, 1952.
Friedberg, Emil A., ed. Corpus iuris canonici. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1879-1881;
reprint, 1922.
Frugoni, Arsenio. Arnaldo da Brescia nelle fonti del secolo XII. (Istituto
storico Italiano per il medio evo, Studi storici, VIII-IX.) Rome, 1954.
- “Filii Arnaldi (per l’interpretazione di un passo di Ottone Morena),”
BISIAM, LXX (1959), 521-24.
Fulgentius. De fide ad Petrum, sive de regula verae fidei liber unus. In
Migne, PL, LXV, 671-706.
Fumi, Luigi. “I Paterini in Orvie to,” Archivio storico Italiano, 3d ser.,
XXII (1875), 52-81.
Garsoian, Nina G. The Paulician Heresy: A Study of the Origin and Devel¬
opment of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the
Byzantine Empire. The Hague and Paris, 1967.
* Geoffrey of Auxerre. Epistola ad Archenfredum. In Migne, PL, CLXXXV,
410-16.
- Sancti Bernardi ... vita et res gestae ... Liber tertius. In Migne, PL,
CLXXXV, 301-22. Trans, by Geoffrey Webb and Adrian Walker as
The Vita prima Bernardi. London, 1960.
*George. Disputatio inter catholicum et paterinum hereticum. In Martene
and Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, V, 1705-54.
Gerard of Fracheto. Vitae fratrum ordinis praedicatorum necnon chronica
ordinis anno MCCIII usque ad MCCLIV. Ed. by B. M. Reichert. (Monu-
menta ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica, I.) Rome, 1897.
G6raud, H. “Les Routiers au XII* siecle,” BEC, III (1841-1842), 125-47.
Gerbert of Aurillac (Pope Sylvester II). Lettres de Gerbert (983-997). Ed.
by Julien Havet. (Collection de textes pour servir a l’etude et a l’enseigne-
ment de l’histoire, VI.) Paris, 1889. Trans, by Harriet Pratt Lattin as
The Letters of Gerbert, with His Papal Privileges as Sylvester II. (Records
of Civilization, LX.) New York, 1961.
Gere, Robert H. The Troubadours, Heresy, and the Albigensian Crusade.
Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1956. Ann Arbor, Mich., Uni¬
versity Microfilms (Publ. No. 15628, Microfilm AC-1), 1956.
Gervase of Canterbury. Chronica. Ed. by William Stubbs, in The Historical
Works of Gervase of Canterbury, Vol. I. (Rolls Series, LXXIII.) London,
1880.
Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis. Ed. by William Stubbs, in
The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1169-
1192, Known Commonly under the Name of Benedict of Peterborough.
(Rolls Series, XLIX.) 2 vols. London, 1867.
*Gesta Treverorum: Additamentum et continuatio prima; Continuatio
quarta. Ed. by Georg Waitz, in MGH SS, VIII, 175-200; XXIV, 400-2.
830 Bibliography
Giesebrecht, Wilhelm von. “Uber Arnold von Brescia,” Sitzungsberichte
der koniglichen bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu M urichen:
Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, III (1873), 122-54.
Gleber, Helmut. Papst Eugen III (1145-1153). Arstadt, 1936.
Glorieux, Palemon. Repertoire des maitres en theologie de Paris au Xllle
siecle. (Etudes de philosophic medievale, XVII-XVIII.) 2 vols. Paris,
1933-1934.
Gonnet, Giovanni. “Un decennio di studi sull’eterodossia medioevale,”
Protestantesimo, XVII (1962), 203-39.
- Enchiridion fontium Valdensium. (Recueil critique des sources con-
cernant les Vaudois au moyen age: Du 11Ie Concile de Latran au Synode
de Chanforan [1179-1532].) Vol. I. Torre Pellice, 1958.
- “II movimento valdese in Europa secondo le piu recenti ricerche (sec.
XII-XVI),” Bollettino della Societa di studi Vaidesi, C (1956), 21-30.
- 11 Valdismo medioevale: Prolegomeni. Torre Pellice, 1942.
- “Waldensia,” RHPR, XXXIII (1953), 202-54.
Gorce, M. M. “Moneta de Cremone, ou Simoneta,” DTC, Vol. X, part 2,
pp. 2211-15.
Grabmann, Martin. “Der Franziskanerbischof Benedictus de Alignano
(+1268) und seine Summa zum Caput Firmiter des vierten Late ran-
konzils,” in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien P. Michael Bihl, O.F.M., als
Ehrengabe dargeboten. Kolmar, 1944.
Graf, Arturo. Miti, leggende e superstizioni del medio evo. 2 vols. Turin,
1892-1893.
- The Story of the Devil. Trans, by Edward Noble Stone. New York,
1931.
Grant, Robert M. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. (Lectures on the His¬
tory of Religions, new ser., V.) New York, 1960.
- Gnosticism: A Source Book of Heretical Writings from the Early
Christian Period. New York, 1961.
Gratian. Decretum. In Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, Vol. I.
Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century: A
Study of Their Relations during the Years 1198-1254, Based on the Papal
Letters and the Conciliar Decrees of the Period. Philadelphia, 1933.
- “The Confession of a Medieval Jewish Convert,” Historia Judaica>
XVII (1955), 89-120.
Greenaway, George W. Arnold of Brescia. Cambridge, 1931.
Gregoire, Henri. “Cathares d’Asie Mineur, dltalie et de France,” in
Memorial Louis Petit. (Archives de l’orient chretien, I.) Bucharest, 1948.
Gregory VII, Pope. The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII: Selected
Letters from the Registrum. Trans, by Ephraim Emerton. (Records of
Civilization, XIV.) New York, 1932.
Gregory IX, Pope. Les Registres de Gregoire IX: Recueil de bulles de ce
pape. Ed. by Lucien Auvray. (Bibliotheque de l’Ecole fran^aise d’Athenes
et de Rome, 2d ser., IX.) 4 vols. Paris, 1896-1955.
Bibliography 831

Gregory, Bishop of Tours. History of the Franks: Selections. Trans, by

Ernest Brehaut. (Records of Civilization, II.) New York, 1916.
Gretser, Jacob. Opera omnia_17 vols. Ratisbon, 1734-1741.
Grundmann, Herbert. “Eresie e nuovi ordini religiosi nel secolo XII,” in
Relazione del X Congresso, III, 357-402.
-Ketzergeschichte des Mittelalters. Vol. II, Lieferung G (Part 1), of
Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte: Ein Handbuck, ed. by Kurt Dietrich
Schmidt and Ernest Wolf. Gottingen, 1963.
-Neue Forschungen iiber Joachim von Fiore. (Munstersche Forschungen,
I.) Marburg, 1950.
-Religiose Bewegungen im Mittelalter: Untersuchungen iiber die ge-
schichtlichen Zusammenhange zwischen der Ketzerei, den Bettelorden
und der religidsen Frauenbewegungen im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert und
iiber die geschichtlichen Grundlagen der deutschen Mystik. (Historische
Studien, 267.) Berlin, 1935; reprint with additions, 1961.
-“Der Typus des Ketzers in mittelalterlicher Anschauung,” in Kultur-
und Universalgeschichte: Festschrift fur Walter Goetz, pp. 91-107. Leip¬
zig, 1927.
Gui, Bernard. See Bernard Gui.
*Guibert de Nogent: Histoire de sa vie (1053-1124). Ed. by Georges
Bourgin. (Collection de textes pour servir a l’etude et a l’enseignement
de Thistoire, XL.) Paris, 1907. Trans, by C. C. Swinton Bland as The
Autobiography of Guibert, abbot of Nogent-sous-Coucy. London and
New York, 1926.
Guillaume. See William.
Guillaume, Paul. “Doctrine du Vaudois au XIVe siecle, d’apr&s le manuscrit
15179 du fonds latin de la Biblioth&que nationale,” Bulletin de la Societe
d'etudes des Hautes Alpes, VII (1888), 220-22.
Guiraud, Jean. Cartulaire de Notre Dame de Prouille, precedi dyune etude
sur Valbigeisme languedocien au XHe et XIIIe siecles. 2 vols. Paris,
1907.
- “Le Consolamentum cathare,” RQH, new ser., XXXI (1904), 74-112.
-Histoire de VInquisition au moyen dge. 2 vols. Paris, 1935-1938.
-UInquisition medievale. Paris, 1928. Trans, by E. C. Messenger as
The Mediaeval Inquisition. London, 1929.
*De haeresi catharorum in Lombardia. Ed. by Antoine Dondaine, in “La
HiSrarchie cathare, I,” AFP, XIX (1949), 306-12.
Haskins, Charles H. Studies in Mediaeval Culture. Oxford, 1929.
Haureau, M. B. “M6moire sur la vie et quelques ceuvres d’Alain de Lille,”
Memoires de VAcadimie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de I’Institut
national de France, Vol. XXXII, part 1 (1886), pp. 1-27.
Havet, Julien. “L’h6r6sie et le bras seculier au moyen age jusqu’au treizieme
si&cle,” BEC, XLI (1880), 488-517, 570-607.
Heisig, Karl. “Ein gnostische Sekte im abendlandischen Mittelalter,” Zeit^
schrift filr Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, XVI (1964), 271-74.
832 Bibliography

*Heribert, a monk. Epistola de haereticis Petragoricis. In Migne, PL,

CLXXXI, 1721-22.
*Heriger and Anselm of Liege. Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium. Ed. by
Rudolph Koepke, in MGH SS, VII, 161-234.
Histoire litteraire de la France. 38 vols. Paris, 1733-1949.
*Hugh of Poitiers. HisWria Vizeliacensis monasterii. In Bouquet, Recueil,
XII, 317-44.
Hugon, Augusto Armand, and Giovanni Gonnet. Bibliografia valdese.
(Societa di studi valdesi.) Torre Pellice, 1953.
*Ilarino da Milano. L'Eresia di Ugo Speroni nella confutazione del Maestro
Vacario: Testo inedito del secolo XU con studio storico e dottrinale.
(Studi e Testi, CXV.) Vatican City, 1945.
- “Le eresie medioevali (sec. XI-XV),” in Grande antologia filosofica,
IV, 1599-1689. Milan, 1954.
- “Le eresie popolari del secolo XI nell’Europa occidentale,” in Studi
Gregoriani per la storia di Gregorio VII e della riforma Gregoriana, ed.
by G. B. Borino, II, 43-89. Rome, 1947.
- “Fr. Gregorio, O.P., vescovo di Fano, e la ‘Disputatio inter catholi-
cum et paterinum hereticum,* ” Aevum, XIV (1940), 85-140.
*- ‘Liber supra Stella* del piacentino Salvo Burci contro i Catari e
altre correnti ereticali,” Aevum, XVI (1942), 272-319; XVII (1943), 90-
146; XIX (1945), 281-341.
- “La ‘Manifestatio heresis catarorum quam fecit Bonacursus* secondo
il cod. Ottob. lat. 136 della Biblioteca Vaticana,” Aevum, XII (1938),
281-333.
- “La ‘Summa contra haereticos’ di Giacomo Capelli, O.F.M., e un suo
‘Quaresimale* inedito (secolo XIII),” Collectanea franciscana, X (1940),
66-82.
Imbs, Paul. “A la Recherche d’une literature cathare,” Revue de moyen
dge latin, V (1949), 289-302.
*Innocent III, Pope. Regestorum sive epistolarum libri XV. In Migne, PL,
Vols. CCXIV-CCXVI.
The Interpreter’s Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised
Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, Ex¬
position for Each Book of the Bible. 12 vols. New York, 1951-1957.
* Interrogate Johannis. Ed. by Richard Reitzenstein, in Die Vorgeschichte
der christlichen Taufe, pp. 293-311.
*Jaffe, Phillip, ed. Monumenta Bambergensia. (Bibliotheca rerum Germani-
carum, V.) Berlin, 1869.
Tames Capelli (Jacobus de Capellis). Summa contra hereticos. Ed. by Dino
Bazzocchi, in La Eresia catara, appendix. Also in Cesena, Biblioteca
Malatestiana, MS Pluteus I, viii.
James of Voraggio (Jacobus de Voragine), Saint. The Golden Legend of
Jacobus de Voragine. Trans, by Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger.
2 vols. London and New York, 1941.
Bibliography 833

Janssen, H. Q. “Tanchelijn,” Annales de VAcademie royale d’archeologie de

Belgique, 2d ser., Ill (1867), 374-450.
The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Literature,
and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times .... Ed. by
Cyrus Adler, Isidore Singer, et ah 12 vols. New York, 1961-; reprint,
1964.
'“John of Salisbury. John of Salisbury’s Memoirs of the Papal Court (His-
toria pontificalis). Trans, by Marjorie Chibnall. London, 1956.
Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the
Beginnings of Christianity, Boston, cl958.
Kaltner, Balthasar. Konrad von Marburg und die Inquisition in Deutsch¬
land. Prague, 1882.
*Kappeli, Thomas. “Une Somme contre les heretiques de S. Pierre Martyr?”
AFP, XVII (1947), 295-355.
- and A. Zanmovie, “Traites anti-vaudois dans le manuscrit 30 de la
bibliotheque des Dominicains de Dubrovnik (Raguse),” AFP, XXIV
(1954), 297-305.
The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Ed. and
trans. by Fred. C. Conybeare. Oxford, 1898.
Knowles, David. “Peter the Venerable,” Bulletin of the John Rowlands
Library, XXXIX (1956), 132-45.
Koch, Gottfried. Frauenfrage und Ketzertum im Mittelalter: Die Frauen-
bewegung im Rahmen des Katharismus und des Waldensertums und ihre
sozialen Wurzeln (XII-XIV Jahrhundert). (Forschungen zur mittelalter-
lichen Geschichte, IX.) Berlin, 1962.
- “Neue Quellen und Forschungen liber die Anfange der Waldenser,”
Forschungen und Fortschritten, XXXII (1958), 141-49.
Kramp, Joseph, “Chronologisches zu Peters des Ehrwiirdigen epistola
adversus Petrobrusianos,” in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, I, 71-79.
(Studi e Testi, XXXVII.) Rome, 1924.
Kulcs&r, Zsuzs&nna. Eretnekmozgalmak a Xl-XlV szdzadban. (A Budapesti
Egyetemi Konyvt&r Kiadvanyai, XXII.) Budapest, 1964.
Kurth, O. Landulf der Aeltere von Mailand. Halle, 1885.
Lacger, Louis de. “L’Albigeois pendant la crise de I’albig&sme: L’episcopat
de Guilhem Peire (1185-1227),” RHEt XXIX (1933), 272-315, 586-633,
849-904.
Lacombe, George. “Prevostin de Cr6mone,” DTC, XIII, 162-69.
-La Vie et les oeuvres de Prevostin. (Bibliotheque Thomiste, XI.) Kain,
1927.
Lagarde, Georges de. La Naissance de Vesprit laique au declin du moyen
rum inquisitionis Tholosanae ab anno Christi MCCVll ad annum
dge. Rev. ed. 5 vols. Louvain and Paris, 1956-1963.
* Landulf the Elder. Landulphi senioris Mediolanensis historiae libri qua-
tuor. Ed. by Alessandro Cutolo, in L. A. Muratori, Rerum italicarum
scriptores, new ed., Vol. IV, part 2, pp. 5-128. Trans, by A. Visconti as
834 Bibliography
La Cronica milanese di Landolfo seniore, sec. XL Milan, 1928.
The Layman in Christian History: A Project of the Department on the
Laity of the World Council of Churches. Ed. by Stephen Charles Neill
and Hans-Reudi Weber. Philadelphia, cl963.
Lea, Henry Charles. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. 3 vols.
New York and London, 1888; reprint, 1955. Abridged ed. by Margaret
Nicolson; New York, 1961.
- Materials toward a History of Witchcraft. Ed. by Arthur C. Howland.
3 vols. New York, 1957.
Leclercq, Jean. “Les Ecrits de Geoffroy d’Auxerre,” Revue benedictine,
LXII (1952), 274-91.
- Pierre le Venerable. Paris, 1946.
- “Le Temoignage de Geoffroy d’Auxerre sur la vie Cistercienne,”
Studia Anselmiana, XXXI; Analecta monastica, II (1953), 174-201.
*Lecoy de la Marche, Albert, ed. Anecdotes historiques, legendes et apol¬
ogues, tirees du recueil inedit d’Etienne de Bourbon, dominicain du
XIIIe siecle. (Societe de 1’histoire de France, Publications, CLXXXV.)
Paris, 1877.
Leff, Gordon, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages: The Relation of Heter¬
odoxy to Dissent c. 1250-c. 1450. 2 vols. Manchester and New York,
1967.
Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum. Ed. by E. Roziere. Paris, 1869.
* Liber de duobus principiis. Ed. by Antoine Dondaine, in Un Traite neo-
manicheen, pp. 81-147.
The Life of St. Alexius. Trans, in The Oldest Monuments of the French
Language, pp. 28-56. Oxford, 1912.
Limborch, Philip van. Historia inquisitionis cui subiungitur Liber sententia-
rum inquisitionis Tholosanae ab anno Christi MCCCVll ad annum
MCCCXXlll. Amsterdam, 1692.
Loeb, Isidore. “La Controverse religieuse entre les Chretiens et les Juifs au
moyen age en France et en Espagne,” RHR, XVII (1888), 311-37;
XVIII (1888), 133-56.
Luchaire, Achille. Innocent III. 6 vols. Paris, 1905-1908.
Mabillon, Jean. Life and Works of Saint Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux.
Trans, by Samuel J. Eales. 4 vols. London, 1889-1896.
- ed. Vetera analecta sive collectio veterum aliquot operum et opus-
culorum omnis generis. Paris, 1723.
McDonnell, Ernest W. The Beguines and Beghards in Medieval Culture,
with Special Emphasis on the Belgian Scene. New Brunswick, 1954.
- “The vita apostolica: Diversity or Dissent?” Church History, XXIV
(1955), 15-31.
McNeill, John T., and Helena M. Gamer. Medieval Handbooks of Penance:
A Translation of the Principal libri poenitentiales and selections from
Related Documents. (Records of Civilization, XXIX.) New York, 1938.
Maillet, Henri. UEglise et la repression sanglante de Vheresie. Ed. by
Bibliography 835

K. Hanquet. (Bibliothdque de la Faculty de philosophic et lettres de

l’Universit6 de Liege, XVI.) Li&ge, 1909.
Maire, Elie. Saint Norbert (1082-1134). Paris, 1922.
Maisonneuve, Henri. Etudes sur les origines de Ylnquisition. (L’eglise et
l’6tat au moyen age, VII.) 2d ed. Paris, 1960.
Maitland, Samuel R. Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History,
Doctrine and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses. London,
1832.
Mandonnet, Pierre. Saint Dominique, l’idee, Yhomme et les oeuvres ....
With additions by M. H. Vicaire. 2 vols. Paris, 1938. Trans, by Sister
Mary Benedicta Larkin as Saint Dominic and His Work. St. Louis and
London, 1944.
*Manifestatio haeresis Albigensium et Lugdunensium. Ed. by Antoine
Dondaine, in “Durand de Huesca,” AFP, XXIX (1959), 268-71.
Manselli, Raoul. “Alberico, cardinale vescovo d’Ostia e la sua attivita di
legato pontificioASRSP, LXXVIII (1955), 23-68.
- “Una designazione delPeresia catara: ‘Arriana heresis,’ ” BISIAM >
LXVIII (1956), 233-46.
- La “Lectura super Apocalipsim” di Pietro di Giovanni Olivi: Studi
sulYescatologismo medioevale. (Istituto storico Italiano per il medio evo,
Studi storici, XIX-XXI.) Rome, 1955.
- “II manicheismo medievale,” Ricerche religiose, XX (1949), 65-94.
- “II monaco Enrico e la sua eresia,” BISIAM, LXV (1953), 1-63.
- “I Passagini,” BISIAM, LXXV (1963), 189-210.
- “Profilo dell’eresia medievale (Catari e Valdesi),’’ Humanitas, I
(1950), 384-96.
- Spirituali e Beghini in Provenza. (Istituto storico Italiano per il medio
evo, Studi storici, XXXI-XXXIV.) Rome, 1959.
- “Per la storia delPeresia nel secolo XII: Studi minori,” BISIAM,
LXVII (1955), 189-264.
- Studi sulle eresie del secolo XII. (Istituto storico Italiano per il medio
evo, Studi storici, V.) Rome, 1953.
Mansi, Giovanni Domenico, ed. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima
collectio .... 53 vols. Florence, Venice, and Paris, 1759-1927.
*Map, Walter. De nugis curialium. Ed. by Montague R. James. (Anecdota
oxoniensa ..., medieval and modern series, XIV.) Oxford, 1914. Trans,
by the editor as Walter Map*s “De nugis curialium” London, 1923. Also
trans. by Frederick Tupper and Marbury B. Ogle as Master Walter Map's
Book, De nugis curialium (Courtiers' Trifles). London and New York, 1924.
♦Marine, Edmond, and Ursin Durand, eds. Thesaurus novus anecdotorum.
5 vols. Paris, 1717.
*- Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicum, dogmaticarum,
moralium amplissima collectio. 9 vols. Paris, 1724-1733.
Marthaler, Bernard. “Forerunners of the Franciscans: The Waldenses,
Franciscan Studies, new ser., XVIII (1958), 133-42,
836 Bibliography
Masenius, J. Antiquitatum et annalium Treverensium libri XXVI. 2 vols.
Liege, 1670.
^Matthew Paris. See Paris, Matthew.
Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiastic
corum .... Ed. by Marguerin tie la Bigne et al 27 vols. Lyons, 1677.
Maycock, Alan L. The Inquisition from Its Establishment to the Great
Schism. London, 1926.
Meyer, Paul. “Le Debat d’lzarn et de Sicart de Figueiras,” Annuaire-bulletin
de la Soctiti de lfhistoire de France, XVI (1879), 233-92. Separately
published, Nogent-le-Retrou, 1880.
*Migne, Jacques Paul, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus ... ab aevo aposto-
lico ad tempora Innocentii III, anno 1216... series latina. 221 vols.
Paris, 1844-1864.
Mohr, Walter. “Tanchelm von Antwerpen: Eine nochmalige Oberpriifung
der Quellenlage,” Annales universitatis Saraviensis, III (1954), 234-47.
- “Waldes und das friihe Waldensertum,” Zeitschrift fur Religions- und
Geistesgeschichte, IX (1957), 337-63.
Molinier, Charles. “L’Endura: Coutume religieuse des derniers sectaires
albigeois,” Annales de la Faculty des lettres de Bordeaux, 1st ser.. Ill
(1881), 282-99.
—— “L*Her6sie et la persecution au XIe sifccle,” Revue des Pyrenees, VI
(1894), 26-38.
-VInquisition dans le Midi de la France au XIIIe et au XIVe siecle:
Etude sur les sources de son histoire. Paris, 1880.
-“Les Passagiens: Etude sur une secte contemporaine des Cathares et
des Vaudois,” Memoires de VAcademie des sciences, inscriptions et belles-
lettres de Toulouse, 8th ser., X (1888),. 428-58.
- “Rapport a M. le Ministre de l’instruction publique sur une mission
ex6cutee en Italie de fevrier a avril 1885: Etudes sur quelques manuscrits
des biblioth&ques d’ltalie concernant llnquisition et les croyances here-
tiques du XIIe et XIIIe sidcle,” Archives des missions scientifiques et
litteraires, 3d ser., XIV (1888), 133-336.
*- “Une Texte de Muratori concernant les sectes cathares: Sa prove¬
nance reelle et sa valeur,” Annales du Midi, XXII (1910), 180-220.
- “Un Traite in6dit du XIIIe siecle contre les heretiques cathares,”
Annales de la Faculte des lettres de Bordeaux, V (1883), 225-55. Sepa¬
rately printed, Bordeaux, 1883.
*Moneta of Cremona. Adversus Catharos et Valdenses libri quinque. Ed. by
Thomas A. Ricchini. Rome, 1743.
Monod, Bernard. Le Moine Guibert et son temps. Paris, 1905.
*Monumenta Germaniae historica inde ab anno Christi quingentesimo
usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum .. . Scriptores. 32 vols.
Stuttgart and Hanover, 1823-1896.
Moreau, Edouard de. Histoire de I’eglise en Belgique. 5 vols. Brussels, 1945-
1952.
Bibliography 837
Moreau, H. “Canon de la Messe,” DTC, II, 1540-50.
Morghen, Raffaelo. “II cosidetto neo-manicheismo occidentaie del secolo
XI,” in Convegno “Volta” di scienze morale, storiche e filologiche,
27 maggio-1 giugno, 1956. Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Atti, 8th ser.,
XII (1957), 84-104.
-Medioeyo cristiano. (Biblioteca di cultura moderna, CDXCI.) 2d ed.
Bari, 1958.
- “Movimenti religiosi popolari nel periodo della riforma della Chiesa,”
in Relazione del X Congresso, III, 333-56.
- “Osservazioni critiche su alcune questioni fondamentali riguardanti le
origini e i caratteri delle eresie medioevali,” in “Miscellanea di studi
storica pubblicata in memoria di Pietro Fedele,” Archivio della deputa-
zione Romana di storia patria, new ser., LXVII (1944), 97-151.
Muller, Karl. Die Waldenser und ihre einzelnen Gruppen bis zum Anfang
des 14 Jahrhunderts. Gotha, 1886.
Mundy, John H. Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse, 1050-1230. New
York, 1954.
Muratori, Ludovico Antonio. Liturgia Romana vetus. 2 vols. Venice,
1748.
-ed. Rerum italicarum scriptores ab anno aerae christianae quingen-
tesimo ad millesimum quingentesimum .... New ed. by Giosue Carducci.
Vol. I- . Cittk di CasteUo, 1900- .
Murray, Margaret Alice. The God of the Witches. London, 1933. Reprint*
New York, 1952.
- The Witch-cult of Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology. Oxford,
1921.
Muzzey, David S. The Spiritual Franciscans. New York, 1907.
Nelli, Rene. Ecritures cathares: La Cene secrete, le livre de deux principesy
le rituel latin, le rituel occitan, Textes pricathares et cathares presentes,
traduits et commentes avec une introduction sur les origines et Vesprit du
Catharisme. Paris, 1959.
- and D6odat Roch6. “La Vision d’lsaie,” Cahiers d’etudes cathares,
XXXIII (1958), 19-51.
- et al. Les Cathares. Paris, 1965.
- ed. Spirituality de VMrisie: Le Catharisme. Toulouse, 1953.
Nelson, Ernest W. “The Theory of Persecution,” in Persecution and Liberty,
pp. 3-20.
Newman, Louis I. Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements.
(Columbia University Oriental Series, XXIII.) New York, 1925.
Nickerson, Hoffman. The Inquisition: A Political and Military Study of Its
Establishment. New ed. Boston and New York, 1932.
La Nobla Leycon. Ed. by Antonino de Stefano, in La Noble Legon, pp.
5-37.
Noiroux, Jeanne-Marie. “Les Deux Premiers Documents concernant Pheresie
aux Pays Bas,” RHE, XLIX (1954), 842-55.
838 Bibliography

Noonan, John T., Jr. Contraception: A History of Its Treatment

Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Cambridge, Mass., 1965.
Norgate, Kate. “William of Newburgh,” DNB, XXI, 360-63.
Obolensky, Dmitri Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism
Cambridge, 1955.
Oldenbourg, Zoe. Massacre at Montsegur: A History of the Albigensian
Crusade. Trans, by Peter Green. New York, cl961.
Ordo romanus antiquus. In Maxima bibliotheca, XIII, 708.
*Otto of Freising. The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa by Otto of Freising
and His Continuator, Rahewin. Trans, by Charles C. Mierow with the
collaboration of Richard Emery. (Records of Civilization, XLIX.) New
York, 1953.
- The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146
A.D. by Otto, Bishop of Freising. Trans, by Charles C. Mierow. (Records
of Civilization, IX.) New York, 1928.
* Paris, Matthew. Chronica majora. Ed. by H. R. Luard. (Rolls Series, LVII.)
7 vols. London, 1872-1883. Trans, in part by John A. Giles as Matthew
Paris's English History from the Year 1235 to 1273. 3 vols. London,
1852-1854.
Partee, Carter. “Peter John Olivi: Historical and Doctrinal Study,” Francis¬
can Studies, XX (1960), 215-60.
*Paul, monk of St. Peter of Chartres. Vetus Aganon. Ed. by Benjamin-
Edme-Charles Gu6rard, in Cartulaire de Vabbaye de Saint-Pere de
Chartres. (Collection des cartulaires de France, Vol. I; in Collection de
documents inedits sur l’histoire de France, ser. 1: Histoire politique.)
2 vols. Paris, 1840.
De pauperibus de Lugduno. In Dollinger, Beitrdge zur Sektengeschichte,
II, 92-97.
Persecution and Liberty: Essays in Honor of George Lincoln Burr. New
York, 1931.
* Peter Martyr, Saint (?). Summa contra hereticos. Ed. by Thomas Kappeli,
in “Une Somme contre les heretiques,” AFP, XVII (1947), 320-25.
* Peter of Vaux-de-Cemay. Hystoria albigensis. Ed. by Pascal Gu6bin and
Ernest Lyon. 3 vols. Paris, 1926-1939.
*Peter the Venerable. Epistola sive tractatus adversus petrobrusianos haere-
ticos. In Migne, PL, CLXXXIX, 719-850.
Petrement, Simone. Le dualisme chez Platon, les gnostiques et les mani-
cheens. Paris, 1947.
Petry, Ray C. A History of Christianity: Readings in the History of the
Early and Medieval Church. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1962.
Philippen, L. J. M. “De HI. Norbertus en de strijd tegen het Tanchelmisme
te Antwerpen,” Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis, XXV (1934), 251-88.
Pierron, Johann B. Die katholischen Armen: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungs-
geschichte der Bettelorden mit Beriicksichtigung der Humiliaten und der
Wiedervereinigten Lombarden. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911.
Bibliography i.
839
- “Poor Catholics,” Catholic Encyclopedia, XII, 249-51.
Pirenne, Henri. “Tanchelin et le projet de demembrement du diocese
d’Utrecht vers 1100,” Acadimie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la classe
des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, 5th ser., XIII (1927),
112-19.
Plesner, Johann. UEmigration de la campagne a la ville litre de Florence
au XIII* siecle. Trans, from Danish by the author and F. Bleizal. Copen¬
hagen, 1934.
Pool, David de Sola, ed. and trans. Prayers for the Day of Atonement:
According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews. 3d ed.
New York, 1949.
Poole, Reginald Lane. Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought
and Learning. 2d ed. London and New York, 1920.
Potthast, Augustus. Regesta pontificum Romanorum inde ab anno post
Christum natum MCXCVII1 ad annum MCCCIV. 2 vols. Berlin, 1874-
1875.
Pouzet, Ph. “Les Origines lyonnaises de la secte des vaudois,” Revue d’his-
toire de V&glise de France, XXII (1936), 5-37.
- “La Vie de Guichard, abb6 de Pontigny (1136-1165) et archeveque
de Lyon (1165-1181),” Bulletin de la Societe litteraire, historique et
archeologique de Lyon, X (1926-1928), 117-50.
Praepositinus. See Prevostin.
Pratt, Antoinette Marie. The Attitude of the Catholic Church towards
Witchcraft and the Allied Practices of Sorcery and Magic. Washington,
1915.
*Preger, Wilhelm. “Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldesier im Mittelalter
in Abhandlungen der historischen Classe der koniglich bayerischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften, XIII (1877), 181-250.
- “Der Traktat des David von Augsburg iiber die Waldesier,” Ab¬
handlungen der historischen Classe der koniglich bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, XIV (1878), 181-35.
♦Prevostin of Cremona (?). The Summa contra haereticos Ascribed to Prae¬
positinus of Cremona. Ed. by Joseph N. Garvin and James A. Corbett.
(Publications in Mediaeval Studies, XV.) Notre Dame, 1958.
“Le Probl&me des Bogomiles,” in [Yugoslav] National Committee of His¬
torical Studies, Ten Years of Yugoslav Historiography, 1945-1955. Ed.
by Jorgo Tardie et al Belgrade, 1955.
Puech, Henri C. “Catharisme m6di6val et Bogomilisme,” in Convegno
“Volta” di scienze morale, storiche e filologiche, 27 maggio-1 giugno,
1956. Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Atti, 8th ser., XII (1957), 56-84.
- and Andr6 Vaillant. Le Traite contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le
Pretre: Traduction et etude. (Travaux publies par l’lnstitut d’etudes slaves.
XXI.) Paris, 1945.
Purcell, Mary. Saint Anthony and His Times. Dublin, 1960.
♦Rainerius Sacconi. Summa de Catharis et Pauberibus de Lugduno. Ed. by
840 Bibliography

Antoine Dondaine, in Un Traite neo-manicheen, pp. 64-78.

* Ralph of Coggeshall. Chronicon anglicanum. Ed. by Joseph Stevenson.
(Rolls Series, LXVI.) London, 1875.
Ralph the Ardent. Homilia XIX. In Migne, PL, CLV, 2010-13.
♦Ralph the Bald. Raoul Glaber: Les cinq livres de ses histoires (900-1044).
Ed. by Maurice Prou. (Collection de textes pour servir a l’etude et a
l’enseignement de l’histoire, I.) Paris, 1886.
Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Ed. by
F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden. 3 vols. London, 1936.
Raynaud de Lage, Guy. Alain de Lille: Podte du XIIe siecle. (Institut
d’etudes medi6vales, Publications, XII.) Montreal and Paris, 1951.
Reagan, Joseph C. “Did the Petrobrusians Teach Salvation by Faith Alone?”
Journal of Religion, VII (1927), 81-91.
Reinecke, Wilhelm. Geschichte der Stadt Cambrai bis zur Erteilung der
“Lex Godefridi” 1227. Marburg, 1896.
♦Reitzenstein, Richard. Die Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe. Leipzig
and Berlin, 1929.
Relazione del X Congresso Internazionale di scienze storiche, Vol. Ill:
Movimenti religiosi popolari ed eresie del medioevo. Florence, 1955.
Rerum britannicarum medii aevi Scriptores, or Chronicles and Memorials
of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages. 99 works in 251
vols. London, 1858-1896.
Riol, J. L. “Dernieres connaissances textuaires et folkloriques sur des ques¬
tions cathares: Le salut spirituel et Pabrfcgement mystique de la vie,”
Bulletin de la SociSte des sciences, arts, et belles-lettres du Tarn, new
ser., XXI (1961), 193-213.
Ristori, Giovanni B. “I Paterini in Firenze nella prima meta del secolo
XIII,” Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche, I (1905), 10-23,
328-41, 754-60.
Robbins, Russell Hope. The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology.
New York, cl959.
♦Roger of Hoveden. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedene. Ed. by
William Stubbs. (Rolls Series, LI.) 4 vols. London, 1868-1871. Trans, by
H. T. Riley as The Annals of Roger de Hoveden. 2 vols. London, 1853.
Rose, Elliot. A Razor for a Goat: A Discussion of Certain Problems in the
History of Witchcraft and Diabolism. Toronto, 1962.
Rougement, Denis de. Love in the Western World. Trans, by Montgomery
Belgion. Rev. ed. New York, 1956.
Rousset, Paul. “Raoul Glaber, interpr&te de la pensee commune au Xle
siecle,” Revue d*histoire de Viglise de France, XXXVI (1950), 5-24.
Runciman, Steven. The First Bulgarian Empire. London, 1930.
- The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy.
Cambridge, 1955.
Runeberg, Arne. Witches, Demons, and Fertility Magic: Analysis of Their
Significance and Mutual Relations in West-European Folk Religion.
Bibliography 841
(Societas scientiarum Fernica: Commentationes humanarum litterarum,
Vol. XIV, fasc. 4.) Helsinki, 1947.
Russell, Jeffrey B. “Les Cathares de 1048-1054 a Liege,” Bulletin de la
Societe d’art et dfhistoire du diocese de Liege, XLII (1961), 1-8.
—— “Courtly Love as Religious Dissent,” Catholic Historical Review, LI
(1965), 31-44.
- Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages. (Publications of the
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, I.) Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1965.
- “Interpretations of the Origins of Medieval Heresy,” MS, XXV
(1963), 25-53.
- “A propos du synode d’Arras en 1025,” RHE, LVII (1962), 66-87.
*Salvo Burci. Liber supra Stella. Ed. by Ilarino da Milano, in “II ‘Liber
supra Stella,’” Aevum, XIX (1945), 309-41.
Sancti Antonii de Padua vitae duae. Ed. by Leon de Kerval. Paris, 1904.
Savini, Savino. 11 Catarismo italiano ed i suoi vescovi nei secoli XIII e XIV:
Ipotesi sulla cronologia del Catarismo en Italia. Florence, 1958.
Sbaralea, Joannes H. Bullarium Franciscanum romanorum pontificum
constitutiones, epistolas ac diplomata continens .... 4 vols. Rome, 1759-
1768.
Schmidt, Charles. Histoire et doctrine de la secte des Cathares ou Albigeois.
2 vols. Paris, 1849.
Scott, C. A. “Priscillianism,” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, X,
336-38.
*Secret Supper. See Interrogatio Johannis.
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church. Ed. by Philip Schaff et al. 14 vols. New York, 1887-1894;
reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1956.
Setton, Kenneth, et al. A History of the Crusades. Vols. I-II. Philadelphia,
1962, 1965.
Shannon, Albert C. The Popes and Heresy in the Thirteenth Century.
Villanova, Pa., 1949.
*Sigibert of Gembloux. Chronographia. Ed. by L. C. Bethmann. Continu-
atio Acquinctina, in MGH SS, VI, 405-38; Continuatio Gemblacensis, in
MGH SS, VI, 385-90; Continuatio Praemonstratensis, in MGH SS, VI,
447-56.
Six Vaudois Poems from the Waldensian Manuscripts in the University
Libraries of Cambridge, Dublin, and Geneva. Ed. and trans. by H. J.
Chaytor. Cambridge, 1930.
Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 2d ed. New
York, 1952.
Smedt, Charles de. “Les Sources de l’histoire de la croisade contre les
Albigeois,” RQH, XVI (1874), 433-81.
Smet, Jozef M. de. “De monnik Tanchelm en de Utrechtse bisschopszetel
in 1112-1114,” in Scrinium Lovaniense: Melanges historiques Etienne
842 Bibliography

van Cauwenbergh, pp. 207-34. Gembloux and Louvain, 1961.

Smith, Charles Edward. Innocent III: Church Defender. Baton Rouge,
1951.
Soderberg, Hans. La Religion des Cathares: Etude sur le gnosticisme de la
basse antiquite et du moyen age. Uppsala, 1949.
Solovjev, Alexandre V. “La Doctrine de l’6glise de Bosnie” (trans. by
Henri Gregoire), Academie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la classe des
lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, 5th ser., XXXIV (1948),
481-533.
- “La Messe cathare,” Cahiers d’etudes cathares, XII (1951-1952),
199-206.
Sommariva, Luciano. “La Comprehension historique de l’heresie,” in Nelli,
Spirituality de I’heresie, pp. 63-89.
- “Studi recenti sulle eresie medievali (1939-1952),” Rivista storica
italiana, LXIV (1952), 237-68.
Spatling, Luchesius. De Apostolicis, Pseudo-apostolids} Apostolinis. Munich,
1947.
Spinka, Matthew. John Hus' Concept of the Church. Princeton, 1966.
- ed. Advocates of Reform from Wyclif to Erasmus. (Library of Chris¬
tian Classics, XIV.) Philadelphia, 1953.
- trans. John Hus at the Council of Constance. (Records of Civiliza¬
tion, LXXIII.) New York, 1965.
Statuta ecclesiae antiqua. In Migne, PL, LVI, 879-80.
Stefano, Antonino de. La Noble Legon des Vaudois du Piemont: Texte
critique, introduction, et glossaire. Paris, 1909.
- Riformatori ed eretici del medioevo. Palermo, 1938.
* Stephen of Bourbon. Tractatus de diversis materiis praedicabilis. Ed. by
A. Lecoy de la Marche, as Anecdotes historiques.
Strack, Hermann L. The Jew and Human Sacrifice. Trans, by Henry
Blanchamp. New York and London, 1909.
Stubbs, William. Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitu¬
tional History. 9th rev. ed. by H. W. C. Davis. Oxford, 1913.
*Summa contra haereticos et Manicheos. Ed. by C61estin Douais, in La
Somme des autorith, pp. 34-55. Also in Leipzig, Universitats Bibliothek,
MS 894, fols. 74v-77v.
Summers, Montague. The History of Witchcraft and Demonology. 2d ed.
New York, 1956.
Suraci, Antonio. Arnaldo da Brescia: Un agitatore del secolo XII (1095-
1155). Asti, 1952.
Taberner, F. Vails, ed. “El diplomatari de Sant Ramon de Penyafort,”
Analecta sacra Tarraconensia: Annuari de la Biblioteca Balmes, V (1929),
254-61.
Tengnagel, Sebastian. Collectio veterum monumentorum contra schismati-
cos. Ingolstadt, 1612.
Theloe, Hermann. Die Ketzerverfolgungen im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert: Ein
Bibliography 843
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entstehung des papstlichen Ketzerinquisiiions-
gericht. (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, XLVIII.)
Berlin and Leipzig, 1913.
Thery, Gabriel. Autour du decret de 1210, I: David de Dinant—Etude sur
son pantheisme materialiste. (Bibliotheque Thomiste, VI.) Paris, 1925.
Theseider, Eugenio Dupre. Introduzione alle eresie medievali. Bologna,
1953.
Thomas, Antoine. “Bernard Gui, frere precheur,” in Histoire litteraire de
la France, XXXV, 139-232.
Thomas Aquinas, Saint. The Summa theologica. Trans, by fathers of the
English Dominican Province, rev. by Daniel J. Sullivan. (Great Books of
the Western World, XIX-XX.) 2 vols. Chicago, 1955.
Thompson, James Westfall. “Catharist Social Ideals in Medieval French
Romances,” Romanic Review, XXVII (1936), 99-104.
Thomson, S. Harrison. “Pre-Hussite Heresy in Bohemia,” English Historical
Review, XLVIII (1933), 23-42.
Thorndike, Lynn. University Records and Life in the Middle Ages.
(Records of Civilization, XXXVIII.) New York, 1944.
Thouzellier, Christine. Catharisme et valdeisme en Languedoc a la fin du
Xlle et au debut du Xllle siecle: Politique pontificale-controverses.
(Publications de la Faculty des lettres et sciences humaines de Paris,
Serie ‘Recherches,’ XXVII.) Paris, 1966.
- “Controverses vaudoises-cathares a la fin du XIIe siecle (d’apr&s le
livre II du Liber antiheresis Ms Madrid 1114 et les sections correspon-
dants du Ms B.N. lat. 13346),” AHDLMA, XXXV (1960), 137-227.
- “Her6sie et croisade au XIIe siecle,” RHE, XLIX (1954), 855-72.
- “Le ‘Liber antiheresis’ de Durand de Huesca et le ‘Contra hereticos’
d’Ermengaud de Beziers,” RHE, LV (1960), 130-41.
- “La Pauvrete, arme contre I’Albigiisme en 1206,” RHR, CLI (1957),
79-92.
- “La Profession trinitaire du vaudois Durand de Huesca,” RTAM,
XXVII (1960), 267-89.
—— “La Repression de l’heresie et les debuts de l’lnquisition,” in Fliche
and Martin, Histoire de VEglise, Vol. X, chap. 3.
- Une Somme anti-cathare: Le Liber contra manicheos de Durand de
Huesca. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Etudes et documents, XXXII.)
Louvain, 1964.
*- Un Traite cathare inedit du debut du XIIIe siecle d’apres le Liber
contra manicheos de Durand de Huesca. (Bibliotheque de la Revue
d’histoire ecclesiastique, XXXVII.) Louvain, 1961.
- “Les Versions bibliques utilis6es par Durand de Huesca au debut du
XIIIe siecle,” in Melanges Eugene Tisserant, I, 419-35. (Studi e testi,
CCXXI.) Vatican City, 1964.
Tiraboschi, Girolamo. Vetera humiliatorum monumenta. 3 vols. Milan,
1766-1768.
844 Bibliography

Tocco, Felice. “Gli apostolici e fra Dolcino,” Archivio storico italiano,

5th ser., XIX (1897), 241-75.
- La questione della poverta nel secolo XIV secondo nuovi documenti.
Naples, 1911.
Tout, T. F. The Study of Mediaeval Chronicles. London, 1922.
*Tractatus manicheorum. Ed. by C. Thouzellier, in Un Traite cathare,
pp. 87-113.
Turberville, Arthur S. Mediaeval Heresy and the Inquisition. London, 1920;
reprint, 1964.
Turdeneau, Emile. “Apocryphes bogomiles et apocryphes pseudo-bogo-
miles,” RHR, CXXXVIII (1950), 22-52, 176-218.
Unterkircher, Franz. “ ‘Pseudo-Rainier* und ‘Passauer Anonymus,’ ” Mit-
teilungen des Instituts fiir osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, LXIII
(1955), 41-46.
Vacandard, Elphege. LfInquisition: Etude historique et critique sur le
pouvoir coercitif de Yeglise. Paris, 1906; 5th ed., 1909. Trans, by B. L.
Conway, from the 2d ed. as The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical
Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. New York, 1921.
- “Les Origines de l’heresie albigeoise,” RQH, LV (1894), 50-83.
- Vie de Saint Bernard, abbe de Clairvaux. 2 vols. Paris, 1920.
*Vacarius. Liber contra multiplies et varios errores. Ed. by Ilarino da
Milano, in UEresia di Ugo Speroni, pp. 483-583.
Vaissete, Joseph. See Devic, Claude, and Joseph Vaissete.
Valvekens, J. B. “Haereses ac sectae ineuntis medii aevi et Praemonstraten-
ses,” Analecta Praemonstratensia, XXXIII (1957), 141-47.
Varga, Lucie. “Les Cathares sont-ils des neo-manicheens ou des neo-
gnostiques?” RHR, CXX (1939), 175-93.
- “Peire Cardinale etait-il h6r6tique?” RHR, CXVII (1938), 205-31.
- “Un Probleme de methode en histoire religieuse: Le Catharisme,”
Revue de synthese, XI (1936), 133-43.
Vasoli, Cesare. “II ‘Contra haereticos’ di Alano di Lilia,” BISIAM, LXXV
(1963), 123-72.
Vaughan, Richard, Matthew Paris. (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life
and Thought, new ser., VI.) Cambridge, 1958.
Vedder, Henry C. “Origin and Early Teaching of the Waldenses, according
to Roman Catholic Writers of the Thirteenth Century,” American Jour¬
nal of Theology, IV (1900), 465-89.
Vekene, E[mil] van der. Bibliographic der Inquisition: Ein Versuch. Hildes-
heim, 1963.
*Venckeleer, Theo. “Un Recueil cathare: Le manuscrit A.6.1P de la Collec¬
tion vaudoise de Dublin, I: Une Apologie; II: Une glose sur le Pater,”
RBPH, XXXVIII (1960), 815-34; XXXIX (1961), 758-93.
Vernet, Felix, “Cathares,” DTC, II, 1987-99.
- “Fraticelli,” DTC, VI, 770-84.
- “Humilies,” DTC, VII, 311-21.
Bibliography 845
Verrees, Libert. “Le Traits de l’abb6 Bernard de Fontcaude contre les
Vaudois et les Ariens,” Analecta Praemonstratensia, XXXI (1955), 5-35.
Vicaire, Marie-Humbert. Histoire de Saint Dominique. 2 vols. Paris, 1957.
Trans, by Kathleen Pond as Saint Dominic and His Times. New York,
1965.
- Saint Dominique de Caleruega d’apres les documents du Xllle siecle.
Paris, 1955.
Vidal, J. M. “Apostoliques,” Dictionnaire d* histoire et de geographie eccle-
siastique, Vol. Ill, cols. 1038-48. Paris, 1924.
- “Les derniers ministres de l’albig&sme en Languedoc: Leurs doc¬
trines,” RQH, LXXIX (1906), 57-107.
- “Doctrine et morale des derniers ministres albigeois,” RQH, LXXXV
(1909), 357-409; LXXXVI (1909), 5-48.
- “L’Emeute des Pastoreaux en 1320: Deposition du Juif Baruc devant
PInquisition de Pamiers,” Annales de St. Louis-des-Frangais, III (1898-
1899), 154-74.
- “Proc&s d’inquisition contre Adh6mar de M asset, noble rousillonnais
inculp6 de b£guinisme (1332-1334),” Revue d*histoire de I'Eglise de
France, I (1910), 555-89, 682-89, 711-24.
- Le Tribunal de VInquisition de Pamiers: Notice sur le registre de
VSveque Jacques Fournier. Toulouse, 1909.
Vignier, Nicholas. Recueil de Vhistoire de Viglise. Leiden, 1601.
Violante, Cinzio. La Pataria milanese e la riforma ecclesiastica, 1: Le
premesse (1045-1057). (Istituto storico Italiano, Studi storici, XI-XIII.)
Rome, 1955.
- La Societa milanese nelVeta precomunale. Bari, 1953,
Violini, Cesare. Fra Dolcino e la setta degli apostolici. Turin, 1942.
*The Vision of Isaiah. Trans, by R. H. Charles, in The Ascension of Isaiah,
Translated from the Ethiopic Version, Which together with the New
Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin Translation of the
Slavonic, Is Here Published in Full. London, 1900.
*Vita sancti Galdini. In A A SS, 18 April, II, 590-95.
Vita sancti Petri martyris. In AA SS, 29 April, III, 697-704.
Volpe, Gioacchino. Movimenti religiosi e sette ereticali nella societa medie-
vale italiana (secoli XI-XIV). (Collana storica, VI.) 2d ed. Florence, 1926.
Wakefield, Walter L. “The Treatise against Heretics of James Capelli: A
Study of Medieval Preaching and Writing against Heresy.” Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1951.
Walter, Johannes Wilhelm von. Die ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs:
Studien zur Geschichte des Mdnchtums: Part I, Robert von Arbrissel,
Part II, Neue Folge. Leipzig, 1903, 1906.
Walther, Daniel. “A Survey of Recent Research on the Albigensian
Cathari,” Church History, XXXIV (1965), 146-77.
Warner, Henry James. The Albigensian Heresy. 2 vols. London, 1922,
1928.
846 Bibliography

Wattenbach, Wilhelm. Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter bis

zur Mitte des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts. 6th ed. 2 vols. Berlin, 1893.
Webb, C. C. J. John of Salisbury. London, 1932.
Wendt, M. H. H. Christentum und Dualismus, Jena, 1909.
Werner, Ernst, “naxaprivoi -patarini: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Sekten-
geschichte des 11. Jahrhunderts,” in Von Mittelalter zur Neuzeit: Zum
65 Geburtstag von Heinrich Sproemberg, pp. 404-19. Berlin, 1956.
- Pauperes Christi: Studien zu sozial-religidsen Bewegungen im Zeit-
alter des Reformspapsttums. Leipzig, 1956.
- and Martin Erbstrosser. Ideologische Probleme des mittelalterlichen
Plebejertums: Die freigeistige Haeresie und ihre sozialen Wurzeln.
(Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte, VII.) Berlin, 1960.
*Wiliiam, a monk. Contra Henricum schismaticum et hereticum. Ed. by
Raoul Manselli, in “II monaco Enrico,” BISIAM, LXV (1953), 44-63.
Also in Nice, Bibliotheque publique, MS 3 (R.18), fols. 136-43.
William of Nangis. La Chronique latine de Guillaume de Nangis de 1113
d 1300. Ed. by H. Geraud. 2 vols. Paris, 1843.
*William of Newburgh. Historia rerum anglicarum. Ed. by Richard How-
lett, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry 11 and Richard /.
(Rolls Series, LXXXII.) 2 vols. London, 1884-1885. Trans, by Joseph
Stevenson as The History of William of Newburgh (Church Historians
of England, IV, part 2.) London, 1856.
William of Puylaurens. Cronica. Ed. by Bessyier, in “Guillaume de Puy-
laurens et sa chronique,” in Troisiemes melanges d’histoire du moyen
dge, ed. by A. Luchaire, pp. 119-75. (Bibliotheque de la Faculte des
lettres de Paris, XVIII.) Paris, 1904.
Williams, Watkin. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. (Publications of the Univer¬
sity of Manchester, CCXXXVII; Historical series, LXIX.) Manchester,
1935.
Wilson, Robert M. The Gnostic Problem: A Study of the Relations between
Hellenistic Judaism and the Gnostic Heresy. London, 1958.
Wilson, Robert S. Marcion: A Study of a Second Century Heretic. London,
1933.
Yerushalmi, Yosef H. “The Inquisition and the Jews of France in the Time
of Bernard Gui,” Rutgers Hebraic Studies, I (1965), 1-60.
Zacqur, Norman P. “The Children’s Crusade,” in Setton, A History of the
Crusades, Vol. II, chap. 9.
Zanoni, Luigi. Gli Umiliati nei loro rapporti con Veresia, Vindustria della
lana ed i comuni nei secoli XII e XIII. (Bibliotheca historica italica, 2d
ser., II.) Milan, 1911.
- “Valdesi a Milano nei secolo XIII,” Archivio storico lombardo, 4th
ser., XVII (1912), 5-22.
 Index
Abelard, Peter, 121, 147, 148; quoted,
673/i7
Act of Peace, see Peace
Ad abolendam (bull), 33, 690/i2
Adam (heretic of Arras), 257
Adam, biblical, teaching of Cathars
on: that his soul was an angel, 47,
165, 171, 313, 318, 319-20, 344,
364, 460, 461; that his body was
created by the devil, 47, 165, 171,
344, 355, 460; as identified with St.
Joseph, 233; that his soul was
younger son of God, 321; that he
inhabited another world, 342; as a
symbol of charity, 612
Adelbert, bishop of Nimes, 190
Ademar of Chabannes, chronicle of,
73-74, 74-76
Adoration (heretical ceremony), see
Melioramentum
Adultery, forbidden by Cathars, 480,
489, 599-600
Agen, heretical church of, 169, 337
Aimery (heretic of Li&ge), 141
Alan of Lille (Alanus de lnsulis), De
fide catholica, 214-20, 634
Albanenses: Catharist church of, 42,
270, 272, 273, 274, 336, 337, 345,
362; doctrines of, 337-43, 353-57,
358-60 passim; hierarchy of, 362,
373; origin of the name, 629/i23;
confused with Albigenses, 749n5;
see also Desenzano, Catharist
church of; Drugunthia, Catharist
church of
Alberic, cardinal of Ostia, 124, 125
Albertinus of Reggio (Cathar), 373
Albi, Catharist church of, 35, 169,
330, 336, 337
Albigenses, 35, 42; doctrines of, 231-
34, 237-40, 469-510; origin of the
name, 720/il; confused with Alba¬
nenses, 749n5; see also Cathars
Albigensian Crusade, 37
Aldricus de Gilinguellis (Cathar), 167
Aldricus of Bando (Cathar), 169, 371
Alexander III, pope: and Humiliati,
30, 159; and Waldes, 203; and Pat-
arines, 257
Alexander IV, pope, 250-51
Alexis, Saint, 201
Algossus (Poor Lombard), 288
All (heretical concept), 503-4, 514,
544-50
Amalric (heretic of Ivoy), 105
Amalricians, 39-40, 64; doctrines of,
54, 258-63
Amalric of Bena, 39,64, 258, 259, 262
Ambrose, Saint, condemned by Cath¬
ars, 173
Amen, heretical interpretation of, 629-
30
Amizo (Cathar), 163, 167
Ancianus, see Elder
Andrew (Cathar), 362
Andrew of Gruara (Poor Lombard),
371
Angels, heretical doctrines on: that
they became human souls, 47, 48,
164, 165, 217, 232, 239, 299, 309-
10, 318, 338, 364, 368; that they
had bodies, souls, and spirits, 48,
164-65, 309; that they had no free
will, 517-33, 574-78
Anonymous of Passau, 636
Anselm, canon of LiSge, 89
Anselm of Alessandria, Tractatus,
167-70, 361-73, 638
Anselm the Peripatetic, of Milan,
665nll
848
Anthonv of Padua, Saint, 58
Antichrist, 74, 75, 98, 173, 424-26,
431, 432, 433, 434, 763nn21925
Antwerp, 100
Apocalyptic doctrines, 28, 41; of
Amalricans, 260; of Beguins, 424-
26, 432-33, 763n31; of Peter John
Olivi, 761/ill, 763/i25
Apocrypha, see Secret Supper, The;
Vision of Isaiah, The
Apostles, imitation of, 25-26, 51, 129,
139, 146, 148, 158, 209; see also
Apostolics, Pseudo-Apostles
Apostolics (sect), 132, 682/i39; see
also Pseudo-Apostles
Apparellamentum, see Service
Aquinas, Saint Thomas, see Thomas
Aquinas, Saint
Aquitaine, 20, 73-74
Arabici (ancient heretics), 734/i38
Arabs (legendary heretic), 275
Ar6fast, 76-80 passim
Arians (as name for medieval sects),
21, 42, 91, 117, 195, 357, 670n9,
679nl3
Aribert, bishop of Milan, 86-89 passim
Arnaldones (sect), 278
Arnold Beben, 190
Arnoldists (sect), 30, 31, 33, 170,
754/i51
Arnold of Brescia, 24, 25, 30, 56, 57,
122; career and doctrines of, 146-50
Arras, 20, 39, 82-85, 256-57
Ascension of Isaiah, The, 447, 448;
see also Vision of Isaiah, The
Asceticism, 46, 74, 84, 87, 139, 303-4,
306, 381; see also Fasting, by here¬
tics
Ashes, magical power of, 75, 79, 103
Assizes of Clarendon, 724nl2
Auditors (heretical class), 130, 140
Augustine, Saint, 2, 10, 12; quoted,
98-99, 105-6, 352, 415, 670/i2,
674/i4; condemned by Cathars, 173
Auxerre, 39
Bagnolenses: origin of the name, 42-
43, 170; Catharist church of, 273,
274, 330, 336; doctrines of, 289-96,
344-45, 358-60 passim, 364-65;
Index
numbers of, 337; hierarchy of, 362;
schism among, 362; see also Ca-
loianni, Catharist church of; Scla-
vini
Baptism: as performed by Bogomils,
16; in water, rejected as useless, 20,
74, 78, 80, 84, 141, 172, 238, 246,
299-300, 302, 312, 330, 358, 604-6;
as performed by early heretics in
the West, 20, 90, 102; as performed
by Cathars, 43-44, 130, 268, 310,
354, 379, 604, see also Consolamen-
tum; of children, rejected, 102, 105,
116, 120, 123, 131, 154-55, 190,
198, 231, 253, 263, 300, 346, 372,
606; in water, associated with the
devil, 167, 354, 384, 462; Walden-
sian doctrine on, 234, 281-82, 284,
370, 371
Bartholomew of Carcassonne (Albi-
gensian), 494
Beauvais, Council of (1114), 101, 104
Bee-eater (bird), created by the evil
god, 231
Beghards, 41, 702/i8
Beguins (Beguines), 41; in southern
France, 54-55; literature of, 64,
423; in Austria, 187; origin and
doctrines of, 411-27, 702/i8; inter¬
rogation of, 427-38; see also Peter
John Olivi
Belesmanza of Verona (Cathar), 337
Believers (heretical class): in Gnostic
sects, 11, 12; among Bogomils, 15;
among Cathars, 45-46,130, 140-41,
239-40, 270, 331, 382, 384-86;
among Waldenses, 392, 395-97
passim
Benedict of Alignan, Tractatus, 637
Benoist, F., 769nll
Berengar de Aquaviva (Waldensian),
283
Bergamo, Waldensian conference at,
50-51, 278-89
Bernard, prior of Goudargues, 190
Bernard, subdeacon (Amalrician), 259
Bernard Gaucelin, archbishop of Nar-
bonne, 210, 211
Bernard Guarin, archbishop of Arles,
678/i4
Index
Bernard Gui, 59; career of 373-74; in¬
quisitorial manual, 375-445, 638
Bernard of B6ziers (Poor Catholic),
222, 716nl6
Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint, 28, 57,
58, 148; attacks Henry of Le Mans,
122-26; sermon against heresy, 132-
38
Bernard of Fontcaude, Adversus WaU
densium sectam liber, 210-13, 634
Bernard of Saint-Saulge, bishop of
Nevers, 248, 249
Bernard Prim, 221, 229, 277
Bernard Raymond (Albigensian), 197,
200, 706nnl8,20,28
Bernard Ydros, of Lyons, 209
Bertholus of Verona (Cathar), 373
Bertrand, bishop of Metz, 257-58
Bertrand of Saissac, 240
Bible: use of, among Waldenses, 39,
52, 63-64, 203, 209, 268, 387, 396-
97, 729nl0,151n22; use of, among
Cathars, 64-65, 268, 384; forbidden
to laymen, 65, 662w70; see also
Old Testament
Bishops of heretical sects: of Cathars,
26, 45, 128, 239, 268-69, 273, 302,
335; of Waldenses, 53, 391,756/ii0;
names of, in Italy, 160-63 passim,
164, 165, 167, 169-70, 361-62, 373;
chosen, by lot, 161-62; ordination
of, 335-36
Blanc, Master, 190
Bogomil (heretical priest), 14-15
Bogomils (sect), 8; origin and doc¬
trines, 14-17; literature of, 16, 65,
447-65; influence on Cathars, 18,
22, 27, 31-32, 71, 74
Bonacursus, 32; Vita haereticorum,
170-73, 634, 701/i86
Bonaventure of Verona (Cathar), 362,
373
Bonderus of Cremona (Cathar), 373
Boni homines, see Good Men
Bononius (Poor Lombard), 279
Book of the Two Principles, They 49,
66, 511-91
Borst, Arno, 19, 23
Bosnia, 16, 17, 168
Bougres (as name for Cathars), 42,
849
690n 10; see also Bulgaria, sect of
Bourgain, Louis, 658nl8
Branding (as penalty for heresy), 247
Bread: blessed by heretics, 46, 130,
273, 379; ritual for blessing, de¬
scribed, 305, 331, 368-69, 382; see
also Supersubstantial bread
Brescia, 147, 149
Brethren of Penitence, see Beguins
Brethren of the Free Spirit, 40, 258
Brevis Summula, 351-61
Brittany, 24, 141-46, 648nl09
Bruno, archbishop of Trier, 105, 106
Bulgaria: heresy in, 14-17, 27, 336,
337, 690nl0; sect of (Bulgars), 160-
63 passim, 165, 167, 168-69, 690
/i 10, see also Concorezzenses; Ga-
ratenses, Catharist church of
Burchard of Ursberg, chroncile of,
221, 228-30
Burci, Salvo, see Salvo Burci
Burial: in consecrated ground, rejected
by heretics, 24, 102-3, 235, 348;
heretical practice, 274
Burning (as penalty for heresy), 73;
by secular authorities, 75, 81, 150,
244, 255-56, 261, 263; by a mob,
88-89, 96, 104, 121, 129, 140; or¬
dered by church synod or council,
145, 249, 269, 68O/1I; ordered by
joint secular and ecclesiastical au¬
thority, 253, 257; after inquisition,
267,268,351,412, 754/i3
Caesarius of Heisterbach, 57; Dia¬
logue, 243-44, 257-58, 258-62
Caloiannes (Cathar), 163, 165, 167,
170, 362
Caloianni, Catharist church of, 42,
362; doctrines of, 165-66; see also
Bagnolenses, Sclavini
Cambrai, 23, 82, 96
Cantor, Norman, 19
Cappelleti (sect), 278
Capuciati, 753n47
Carcassonne, Catharist church of,
169, 336, 337
Caron (Catharist salutation), 369
Cat, associated with heretics, 254,268,
392, 666/113
850
Catafrigians (name for Cathars), 257
Catharistae (ancient heretics), 687n2
Cathars, 5, 8; and Manichaeans, 6,17;
and Bogomils, 18, 19, 21-22; spread
of, 26-29, 31-33, 35-36, 38-39;
churches of, 32, 44-45, 336-37;
schism among, in Italy, 32, 160-64,
170, 270-71, 337-43, 362-64; names
applied to, 41-43; doctrines, de¬
scribed, 47-49, 128-30, 164-67, 170-
73, 215-17, 230-41, 301-29, 330-31,
337-46, 351-61, 362-65, 379-84,
719/i35; modern interpretations of,
49-50; and Waldenses, 53; litera¬
ture of, 64-67, 447-630 passim;
hierarchy, 128, 167, 361-62, 373;
numbers of, 271, 337; concept of
“Church” among, 596-606, 690nl0;
survivals of, 651nl49, 653nl77;
origin of name, 687n2, 712n4; see
also Albigenses; Bagnolenses; Bou-
gres; Bulgaria, sect of; Catafrigians;
Desenzano, Catharist church of;
Drugunthia, Catharist church of;
Garatenses, Catharist church of;
March of Treviso, Catharist church
of; Patarines; Publicans; Sclavini;
Spoletan Valley, Catharist church
of; Treviso, Catharist church of;
Tuscany, Catharist church of
Celestine V, pope, 406
Cemeteries, see Burial
Chalons-sur-Mame: heresy in, 20, 89-
90; synod at, 664n2
Charity (charities), heretical concept
of, 594, 607-30 passim
Cheese, eating of, prohibited, see
Foods, heretical doctrines on
Christ, heretical doctrines on: of Ma-
ni, 12; of Paulicians, 13; of Cathars,
that he was an angel with a celestial
body, not bom of Mary, 48, 78, 80,
102, 172, 238, 299, 311, 313, 322,
353, 358, 380, 462; of Cathars, that
he was born in the flesh of Mary,
48, 167, 313, 344, 358, 362, 380; of
Cathars, that he lived in another
world, 48, 233, 238; of Cathars,
that he did not suffer human frail¬
ties or death, 78, 80, 172, 291, 311,
Index
353, 354, 358, 365, 380; of Passa-
gians, that he was a pure created
being, 175-77; of Cathars, that the
Christ of this world was evil, 238;
of Cathars, that he was the son of
Lucifer, 353
Church, concept of: restricted by
Tanchelm to include only his fol¬
lowers, 98, 101; among Waldenses,
370; among Beguins, 424; among
Cathars, 380, 596-606
Church, Roman: reform of, and heret¬
ical dissent, 7, 21, 23, 25-26, 28, 29-
31; rejected by Cathars, 24, 25, 35,
88, 129, 130-31, 173, 191-92, 231,
238, 248, 323-29, 379, 383-84; re¬
jected by Waldenses, 51, 213, 346,
349, 370, 372, 391, 396; rejected by
pseudo-Apostles, 405; rejected by
Beguins, 423
Church buildings, rejected by heretics,
24, 117, 120, 213, 248, 356, 360,
407, 409
Circumcisers, (sect), 275, 276, 300,
698n2, 754n52
Circumcision, required by Passagians,
179-81
Clement (heretic of Bucy), 102, 103,
104
Clement I, pope, 372
Closs, Hannah, 65In 159
Colibam, see Ooliba
Collam, see Oolla
Cologne, 24-27 passim, 128-32, 243-
44, 681 n 1
Cologno, 169
Communiati (sect), 31
Como, 186
Concealers of heretics, 72In 17
Concorezzenses: Catharist church of,
42, 270, 272, 273, 274, 330, 336;
numbers of, 337; doctrines, 343-44,
358^61 passim, 362-65; hierarchy,
361-62, 373; see also Bulgaria, sect
of; Garatenses, Catharist church of
Concorezzo, 167, 169
Confession: to priests, rejected, 84,
117, 191, 360; doctrine of Henry
of Le Mans on, 117; among Wal¬
denses, 230, 348, 389, 397; among
Index
Cathars, see Service
♦
Confirmation (sacrament), rejected by
Cathars, 239
Confiscation of property (penalty for
heresy), 196, 257, 728/i6
Conrad of Marburg, 250, 267
Conrad Tors, Master, 267
Consolamentum: efficacy of, 32, 239-
40, 310, 379, 465, 474-81, 488-90,
690nl0; repetition of, 43, 240, 305,
336, 367; description of, 241, 303,
365-67, 383; ritual for, 473-83,488-
91, 492-94
Constance, queen of France, 78, 81
Constantinople: heresy in, 16, 27,
160; heretical churches in, 168, 336,
337
Convenentia, see Covenensa
Cords (heretical concept), 612
Corrucani (sect), 278
Cosmas the Presbyter, 15, 22
Councils, Church, see Beauvais, Coun¬
cil of; Lateran Councils; Lyons,
diocesan council at; Montpellier,
Council of; Pisa, Council of;
Rheims, Council of, 1157, 1148;
Toulouse, Council of; Verona,
Council of
Covenensa, 46, 382, 492, 756n5
Creation, heretical doctrines on: of
ancient heretics, 10-13 passim; of
Bogomils, that the material world
was created by Satan, son of God,
15; of Bogomils, that the material
world was created by the principle
of evil, 16; of Cathars, that there
are two creators and two creations,
47, 48-49, 164-65, 198, 215-17, 231-
32, 237-38, 290, 308-9, 338, 339-41,
354-55, 358, 379, 496-510 passim,
511-78 passim; of Cathars, that the
material world was made by a sub¬
ordinate creator, the devil, Lucifer,
Satan, 47, 165, 171-72, 234, 290-96
passim, 312, 317-18, 359, 364, 458-
61; of John of Lugio, that creation
means only change, 49, 340, 536-
44; of Cathars, that the evil prin¬
ciple was the first creator, 231-32
Cross: rejected by early heretics in
851
the West, 20, 72, 74, 84; rejected
by Peter of Bruys, 120, 121; reject¬
ed by Cathars, 139, 172-73, 248,
313, 349, 384; sign of, used by
Waldenses, 370
Crusades: and spread of heresy, 27,
168; against heresy, 36, 37, 706n28,
759nl2
Cyprian of Le Mans, 676nll
David (the Psalmist), heretical no¬
tions about, 612-30 passim
David of Augsburg, treatise of, 637
David of Dinant, 262, 73In 19
David the Spaniard (David Kimhi),
see RaDaK
Davis, Georgene W., 59
Deacons: among Cathars, 45, 239,
274, 302-3, 335; among Waldenses,
391
Death penalty: right to execute de¬
nied, 52, 227, 234, 345, 357, 361,
381; for heresy, see Burning, Hang¬
ing
Debates between Catholics and here¬
tics, 190-94, 210-13, 220, 225-26,
289-96
Defenders of heretics, 721nl7
De haeresi catharorum in Lombardia,
159-67, 634
Deimai (sect), 674nl2
Demons, associated with heretics, 73,
78, 144, 253
Deonarii (sect), 248
Desenzano, Catharist church of, 42,
163, 164, 170, 336, 337; see also
Albanenses; Drugunthia, Catharist
church of
Desiderius (Cathar), 48, 67, 307,
752nl0; doctrines of, 362-64
Devil: identified with God of the Old
Testament, 11, 15, 166, 167, 308-9,
312, 338, 344, 363; as a son of
God, 13, 15, 234, 238, 745n24; wor¬
ship of, 39, 75, 78-79, 254, 657n7,
666nl3; reputed to free heretics of
their bonds, 139, 144-45; symbol¬
ized by sun, 173; synonyms for,
232, 339, 540-43, 594, 625-28, 796
n70; as creator, see Creation,
852
Devil (Continued)
heretical doctrines on; see also Luci¬
fer, alleged veneration of; Lucifer,
doctrine of Cathars on; Satan, doc¬
trine of Cathars on
Diego, bishop of Osma, 36, 220
Dietary practices, see Foods, heretical
doctrines on
V
Disputatio inter cat ho lie um et pateri-
num hereticum, 289-96, 636
Dolcino of Navarre (pseudo-Apostle),
54, 404, 405, 409
Dollinger, J. J. I. von, 59
Dominic, Saint, 36, 220, 658n26
Dominicans, 229, 230, 267
Dominic of Triangulo (Amalrician),
730/i3
Dominic William (heretic at Ivoy),
105
Donation of Constantine, 51
Donatists (ancient heretics), 98, 642-
/i31
Dondaine, Antoine, 21
Dormans, 104
Douais, Celestin, 59
Double (Catharist ritual), 367, 467,
491, 493
Dragovitsa, sect of, 16, 27; see also
Drugunthia, Catharist church of
Drugunthia, Catharist church of, 42,
161, 163, 164, 167, 168, 336, 337;
see also, Albanenses; Desenzano,
Catharist church of
Dualism: tradition of, 9-19, 21-22;
absolute and mitigated, among
Cathars, 27, 32, 35, 42, 44-45,
718«30; see also Creation, heretical
doctrines on
Dudo (Amalrician), 259
Durand (heretic at Ivoy), 105
Durand of Huesca, 37,61, 63, 220*28;
Liber contra Manicheos, 494-510,
635; writings of, 634-35
Durand of Naiac (Poor Catholic),
716/116
Eagle, created by the evil god, 231
Eberwin of Steinfeld, letter to Bernard
of Clairvaux, 126-32
Ebrard of B6thune, treatise of, 635
Index
Ebrinus (Poor Catholic), 222, 716/il6
Echard (Waldensian), 658/i25
Eckbert of Schonau, sermons of, 38,
243, 633
Eggs, eating of, prohibited, see Foods,
heretical doctrines on
*
Elder (office among Cathars), 368,
466, 473, 474, 482, 485-90 passim,
492, 493
Elder Son (office among Cathars), 45,
273-74, 335, 336
Elect (heretical class), 11, 12, 130;
see also Perfect, Good Men
Elinand (Amalrician), 259
Endura, 43, 303, 334, 743nl5
England, 245-47
Eon d’Etoile, see Eudo
Eonists (sect), 142-46 passim
Ermengaud of Beziers (Poor Catho¬
lic), 222, 230, 716/i 16; treatise of,
61, 634, 635
Eucharist: doctrine of Waldenses on,
51, 235, 241, 268, 283-89, 345, 346,
348, 369, 370-72 passim, 390, 757
n 12; manner of consecration by Wal¬
denses, 51, 372-73, 390; rejected by
early heretics in the West, 78, 80,
83, 98-99, 101, 105, 116, 130; as
test for heresy, 106-7; rejected by
Cathars, 141, 173, 198, 231, 238,
246, 248, 254, 268, 304, 331, 356,
384; doctrine of Hugo Speroni on,
156-57; doctrine of Amalricians on,
262
Eudo (heretic in Brittany), 24, 63,
141-46
Eugene (Eugenius) III, pope, 143,
148, 150
Eulogia, 743/127
Eve, Cathars’ teaching on: that she
was made by devil to cause Adam’s
sin, 165, 171, 172, 295, 321, 461;
that she fornicated with devil, 171,
173, 295, 321, 460; that her daugh¬
ters wed demons, 172, 295; as sym¬
bolized by moon, 173; as identified
with Virgin Mary, 233; that her
soul was an angel, 321, 364, 460,
461
Everwacher (heretic), 100
Index
Evil principle, see Creation, heretical
doctrines on; Devil; Lucifer, alleged
veneration of; Lucifer, doctrine of
Cathars on; Satan, doctrine of
Cathars on
Evrard (heretic of Bucy), 102
Evrard, sacristan of Chartres, 77
Examination of heretics: by bishops,
72, 82-85, 86-88, 103, 105, 244,
252-53, 257, 73In 15; by convoca¬
tions of clergy, 79-81, 128-29, 190-
94, 246-47, 248-49, 261; by Church
councils, 143, 145, 203-4, 204-8;
by legates, 197-200; by inquisitors,
348, 364, see also Interrogation, in¬
quisitorial
Exhumation, 75, 262
Extreme unction, rejected by heretics,
239, 268, 312
Fasting, by heretics, 44, 87, 367-68,
381, 392
Fautors (fautores) of heretics, 72In 17
Feast days, ecclesiastical: rejected by
heretics, 157, 268, 347, 349, 365,
370, 391
Ferrara, 33
Fines, 197
Fitz-Jocelin, Reginald, see Reginald
Fitz-Jocelin
Flogging, 197, 247, 249
Florence, 32, 43, 648nl09; see also
Tuscany, Catharist church of
Foods, heretical doctrines on: prod¬
ucts of coition refused by early
heretics in the West, 103; milk,
meat, eggs, cheese, and all products
of coition, refused by Cathars, 129,
139, 173, 239, 240, 253, 306, 312,
330, 339, 357, 360, 381, 480; of
Passagians, 181-82; all products of
the earth regarded as evil by
Cathars, 305
Fox, as symbol of the heretic, 128,
133-38 passim, 228, 245
France, Catharist church of, 336, 337,
345, 362; see also Francigene
Francigene, Catharist church of, 43,
270, 732nl5
Francis, Saint, 55, 424, 434; the rule
853
of, 54, 415, 416-17, 428, 429, 433
Franciscans, 37, 229, 415-19 passim,
424, 428-30, 434
Frederick (heretic at Ivoy), 105
Frederick, archbishop of Cologne, 96
Frederick I Barbarossa, emperor, 33,
146
Frederick U, emperor, 41
Frederick II, king of Sicily, 424
Free will: rejected by Cathars, 49, 312,
313-19 passim, 513-14, 515; ac¬
cepted by Cathars, 318; Cathars’
arguments against, 517-23, 525-33,
574-78
Friesach, 187
Frumald, bishop of Arras, 256-57
Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, 77
Fulcher (heretic at Chartres), 666nl0
Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspa, 674n6
G. de Cerviano (Waldensian), 283
G. de Moltasio (Poor Lombard), 279
G. de Papia (Poor Lombard), 279
G. Turantus (Waldensian), 283
Galdinus, Saint, bishop of Milan, 32,
151, 170
Garatenses, Catharist church of, 42,
362, 512, 515; doctrines of, refuted,
567-74; see also Bulgaria, sect of;
Concorezzenses
Garattus (Cathar), 162, 163, 165, 167,
361
Garsoian, Nina, 17
Gascony, 119
Gaucelin, bishop of Lodeve, 190, 192,
193
Gausbert, abbot of Candeil, 190
Gebuin I, bishop of Chalons, 664n4
Gebuin II, bishop of Ch&lons, 72
Gemona, 187
Geoffrey of Auxerre, 57, 122, 204,
205; life of St. Bernard, 125-26
Geoffrey II of L&ves, bishop of Char¬
tres, 679nll
George (layman), Disputatio, 289-96,
636
Gerald of Brescia (Cathar), 167
Gerald of Cher, bishop of Limoges,
679nll
Gerald of Cremona (Cathar), 373
 854
Gerald of Mallemort, archbishop of
Bordeaux, 186
Gerard (heretic in England), 246
Gerard (heretic of Monforte), 86-88
Gerard I, bishop of Arras-Cambrai,
82-85 passim
Gerard II, bishop of Cambrai, 95-96
Gerard, bishop of Toulouse, 190
Gerard de Cambiate (Cathar), 362
Gerard Segardli (pseudo-Apostle), 54,
404, 405, 409
Gerbert of Aurillac, see Sylvester II,
pope
Germanus of Auxerre, Saint, 246
Gervais of Tilbury, Master, 251-52
Gilbert de la PornSe, 3, 122, 685/t9
Gilbert Foliot, bishop of London,
723/il
Glosses, biblical, used by heretics,
319-21, 719*32, 745/t22
Gnosticism, 10-11, 17; influence in
Middle Ages, 22, 649*118, 666*13,
685*5, 686*17
Godfrey, duke of Lorraine, 671*16
Godin (Amalrician), 730*3
Good Men (class of Cathars), 28, 42,
190, 239, 466, 485, 489, 490;
also Perfect
Good works, efficacy for salvation,
denied by heretics, 117, 121, 157,
248, 348, 372
Goslar, 20, 93
Grace (Catharist benediction), 467,
491
Gratian, 2
Gregory, bishop of Tours, 664*3
Gregory I, pope, condemned by
Cathars, 173
Gregory VII, pope, 95, 671*7
Gregory IX, pope, 250
Grosseteste, Robert, see Robert
Grosseteste
Guarin, archbishop of Bourges, 196
Guarin, bishop of Beauvais, 80
Guarin, Master (Amalrician), 259, 262
Guamerius of Rochefort, treatise of,
635
Gui, Bernard, see Bernard Gui
Guibert of Nogent, autobiography of,
57, 101-4
Index
Guichard, archbishop of Lyons, 204,
248, 249
Guild of heretics, 100
Gundulf (heretic at Arras), 83
Guy, prior of Montpellier, 190
Hadrian IV, pope, 148
Hamundus of Casalalto (Cathar), 362
Hanging, 93
Hartuvinus (heretic at Cologne), 38
Haskins, Charles Homer, quoted,
640*12
Heart(s), Catharist concept of, 593,
608, 618
Heaven(s), Catharist doctrines on:
seven heavens, 449-58 passim, 458-
59, 609; new heavens, 508-10; as
a substance, 593, 608-9
Hell: identified with this world, 232,
338, 356; as sinners* lack of knowl¬
edge of God, 259; nonexistence of,
355
Henry, abbot of Gaillac, 190
Henry III, emperor, 671*16
Henry II, king of England, 195, 246,
247, 255
Henry of Arezzo (Cathar), 373
Henry of Le Mans (of Lausanne), 24,
25, 63; preaches at Le Mans, 107-
14; condemned by Council of Pisa,
114-15; errors of, described, 115-
17; and Peter of Bruys, 118, 121;
attacked by Bernard of Clairvaux,
122-26; captured, 125
Henry of Marcy, abbot of Clairvaux,
cardinal, 195, 196, 204, 706*28;
quoted, 704*1
Heresies, popular: characteristics, 3-6;
origins, 6-19; review of sources for
history of, 56-57, 633-38
Heresy, defined, 2
Heribert (heretical cleric at Orleans),
76, 666*10
Heribert, a monk, 137*38
Heribert of Boscham, 725*9
Hierarchy of heretical sects, 139-40,
141; see also Cathars, hierarchy;
Bishops, of heretical sects; Deacons;
Elder Son; Younger Son
Higher Star, T/ie, 269-74
Index
Hildebert, bishop of Le Mans, 109,
112-14; quoted 676/tll
Hildegard of Bingen, Saint, 243
Hillary (Cathar), 169
Holmes, G. A., 65In 149
Holy Spirit: baptism of, 43, 130, 173,
331, 354; doctrine of early heretics
in the West on, 78, 88, 90, 141;
doctrine of Cathars on, 141, 310-
11, 313, 338, 354, 357, 361, see also
Consolamentum; doctrine of Amal-
ricians on, 259-60, 262, 263; doc¬
trine of Waldenses on, 347
Horace, 73
Hospices of heretics, 46, 254, 302-3
Huber, Raphael M., 652/il57
Hubert Mandennus or Manderius
(Cathar), 361, 362, 373
Hugh, bishop of Auxerre, 39
Hugh Bird (cleric at Le Mans), 110
Hugh de Vereiras, 190
Hugh of Amiens, bishop of Rouen,
treatise of, 633
Hugh of Poitiers, Historia, 247-49
Hugo Speroni, 63; errors of, 29, 152-
58
Humiliati (sect), 28, 30, 31, 33, 40,
158, 159, 229-30
Hyacinth, Master, cardinal, 147
Images, veneration of rejected, 84,
240, 312, 313, 349
Immorality of heretics: alleged, 8, 21,
39, 46-47, 74, 78-79, 101, 103, 233,
240, 254-55, 332, 392, 406, 666
«13; denied, 303-4, 305-6
Imposition of hands: by Poor Lom¬
bards, 371; by Cathars, see Conso¬
lamentum
Imprisonment, 143, 145, 262, 411
Indulgences, rejected by Waldenses,
348, 370, 371, 389-90
Infant baptism, see Baptism, of chil¬
dren
Innocent II, pope, 115, 147, 150
Innocent III, pope: action against
heresy, 33-34, 36-38, 158, 729nl0;
and Poor Catholics, 222-28
Innocent VIII, pope, 251
855
Inquisition: records of, 59; and witch¬
craft, 250-51
Inquisitors, antiheretical treatises by9
41; see also Anselm of Alessandria,
Bernard Gui, Moneta of Cremona,
Rainerius Sacconi, Stephen of Bour¬
bon
Interrogatio Johannis, see Secret Sup¬
per, The
Interrogation, inquisitorial: of Cath¬
ars, 364, 384-86; of Waldenses,
402-4; of pseudo-Apostles, 408-11;
of Beguins, 427-34; of reconverts
to Judaism, 440-41; of sorcerers,
444-45; see also Examination of
heretics, by inquisitors
Isarn of Dourgne, 190
Israel, identified with fallen angels,
217, 234, 595,611
Ivoy, 105-7
Izarn (inquisitor), 636
J. de Mutina (Poor Lombard), 279
Jacob (Hebrew patriarch), heretical
notions about, 595, 610-12
James I, king of Aragon, 41
James Autier (Albigensian), 65
James Capelli, summa of, 297, 301-6,
636
Jerome, Saint, 2; condemned by
Cathars, 173
Jews: attacks of, on Christianity, 441-
44; ritual for reconversion, 439-40;
that they cannot be saved, 697n26
Joachim of Flora, 39, 258, 633, 730
h10, 761nll
John (companion of Conrad of Mar¬
burg), 267
John I, abbot of Saint Victor, 261
John, bishop of Poitiers, archbishop
of Lyons, 196, 209, 210, 387
John, count of Soissons, 102
John, priest of Orsigny (Amalrician),
259
John de Cucullio (Cathar), 748h3
John de Judice (Cathar), 162
John de Sarnago (Poor Lombard),
279, 283
John Franceschus (Waldensian), 279,
283
856
John Judeus (Cathar), 161 >64 passim,
361, 371
John of Bergamo, see John of Lugio
John of Lorraine (Waldensian), 757
nil
John of Lugio, 66, 337, 748n3; doc¬
trines of, 48-49, 339-43; treatise of,
343
John of Luzano (Cathar), 362
John of Narbonne (Poor Catholic), 222
John of Roncarolo, see John of Ronco
John of Ronco (Poor Lombard), 50,
272, 273, 277, 278, 370
John of Salisbury, Historia pontifica¬
ls 146-48
John Scotus Erigena, 258
John the Baptist, Saint: sanctity of,
denied, 172, 344, 358; as evil spirit,
emissary of the devil, 167, 234, 238,
354, 362, 462, 592-93; accepted as
a saint, 344, 592-93; identified with
Elijah, 362, 462
John the Evangelist, Saint: as an an¬
gel, 48, 167; Gospel of, rejected,
254; awaits the Day of Judgment
in another place, 362-63
John the Good (Cathar), 163
John Vulnerus (Cathar), 373
Jonas (heretic in Lorraine), 39
Jordan de Dogno (Poor Catholic), 279,
283
Joseph (Cathar), 163, 169, 371
Josephini (sect), 31, 33
Josfred, bishop of Paris, 671n7
Judgment: that it has already been
made, 165, 234, 338, 356, 360; Day
of, described, 463-65, 508-10
Julian (Waldensian), 283
Justice, of human agents, denied by
heretics, 313, 323, 330, 345, 348,
357, 361, 371, 372, 389
Juvenal, 73
Killing, forbidden by heretics, 93, 361,
382, 383, 480, 489, 599, 746«6
Kimhi, Rabbi David, see RaDaK
Kingdom, heretical concept of, 612-
lb, 628, 629
Kiss of peace, see Peace
Index
L. de Leganio (Poor Lombard), 279
Labor: refused by Waldensian preach¬
ers, 370, 371, 393
Laity, right to preach: affirmed, 30,
31, 35, 202, 209-10, 213, 258; de¬
nied, 159, 204, 217-20
Lambres, 95
Landulf the Elder, 23; Historia, 86-89
Lanfranc de Vaure (Cathar), 364
Lanfranc of Brescia (Cathar), 373
Last Judgment, see Judgment, Day of
Lateran Councils: Third (1179), 33,
203-4, 689/il; Fourth (1215), 33-
34; Second (1139), 150, 649nl21
Laurence de Gradi (Cathar), 373
Lauterius (Cathar), 373
Law of Moses: rejected by Bogomils,
15; accepted fully by Passagians,
175, 177-82, 276; rejected by Cath-
ars, 172, 190, 231, 298, 322, 355,
358, 359; see also Old Testament
Lawrence, Saint; invoked by heretic,
344; sanctity of, denied, 372
Lea, Henry C., quoted, 3, 641/i23
Lecoy de la Marche, A., 658/t 18
Legislation against heresy, 33-34, 36,
41
Le Mans, 24, 25, 108-14
Leonard, Emile G., 18
Leonists, see Poor of Lyons, Walden-
ses
Leuchard (heretic at Trier), 268
Leutard (heretic at Chalons), 72-73
Levantes (sect), 278
Liber de duobus principiisf see Book
of the Two Principles, The
Liber sententiarum of Bernard Gui,
374
Liege, 24, 26, 27, 139-41, 648/U09
Life (lives), heretical concept of, 618,
629
Limborch, Philip van, 59
Linus, Saint, pope, 372
Lion, created by the evil god, 231
Lisiard, bishop of Soissons, 103, 104
Lisoius (heretic at Orleans), 75, 76, 80
Literature of heretics, 62-67 passim,
269, 278-89, 343, 447-630 passim
Little Brothers (sect), 55
Lombards (sect), 30, 146, 148
Index
Lombers, debate at, between Catho¬
lics and heretics, 35, 189-94
Lord’s Prayer: used by Cathars, 27,
43, 65, 139; used by Amalricians,
64, 73 In 19; right to say, bestowed
by consolamentum, 468-73, 485-88,
814n38; interpretation of, by Cath¬
ars, 468-72, 593-95, 607-30
Lots, choice of bishops by, 161, 162
Louis (Poor Lombard), 371
Louis VII, king of France, 195, 251
Louis VIII, king of France, 41
Lucibel, see Luzabel
Lucifer, alleged veneration of, 254,
268
Lucifer, doctrine of Cathars on: that
he was son of evil god, 47, 164,
165, 232, 353; as identified with the
steward in the parables, 164; that
he seduced angels of heaven, 164,
217, 232; that he was once a good
angel, 165, 318; as the principle of
evil, 215; that he seduced wife of
celestial king, 353; that he was an
angel deceived by the devil, 656
«225; as creator, see Creation, he¬
retical doctrines on; see also Devil;
Satan, doctrine of Cathars on
Luciferans (sect), 732n7
Lucius II, pope, 140
Lucius III, pope, 33, 211, 229
Luke, bishop of Tuy, De altera fide,
65, 635-36, 658nll
Luzabel (apostate angel), 254
Lying forbidden: by Waldenses, 52,
346, 396; by Cathars, 383, 489, 600
Lyons: origin of Waldenses in, 34,
200-2, 209-10; diocesan council at,
204
Magic, 21, 139, 144-45, 249-56, 255-
56, 657n7; see also Sorcery
Maimonides (Moses son of Maimon),
443
Mainz, 268, 646«83
Majorai (Waldensian office), 392
Manasses (associate of Tanchelm), 99
Mani, 12, 90, 168
Manichaeans, as name for medieval
heretics, 12, 21, 28, 38, 42, 74, 75,
857
90, 103, 257, 275, 291, 295, 297,
300, 375-84 passim, 658/i23, 665nl,
670n9
“Manichaean” treatise, 65, 494-510,
635
Manichaeism, 14, 17, 18
Manifestatio haeresis Albigensium et
Lugdunensium, 230-35, 634
Mantua, 163, 170
Map, Walter, see Walter Map
Marchisius of Sojano (Cathar), 164,
167
March of Treviso, Catharist church
of, 169, 170, 345; numbers in, 337;
see also Vicenza, Catharist church
of
Marcion (ancient heretic), 11-12
Marcionites (as name for medieval
heretics), 42, 642n37, 783«4
Margarita (pseudo-Apostle), 404,
758n2
Marinus (Poor Lombard), 279
Mark (Cathar), 160-61, 169, 371
Martin, Saint, bishop of Tours, 93
Mary, Saint, see Virgin Mary, heret¬
ical doctrines on
Mary Magdalen, heretical teachings
on: as wife of Christ, 234, 719n35;
as concubine of Christ, 238
Massarius (Waldensian), 280
Matrimony, heretical doctrines on: re¬
jected by Bogomils, 15; rejected by
early heretics in the West, 20, 25,
83, 84, 90, 103; rejected by Cathars,
26, 141, 231, 246, 248, 253, 312,
330, 357, 360; doctrine of Henry of
Le Mans, 117; regarded by Cathars
as barrier to salvation, 167, 173,
191, 198, 239, 305-6, 330; dissolu¬
tion of, permitted by Waldenses,
273, 282, 350; regarded by Walden¬
ses as mortal sin, 276; spiritual in¬
terpretation of, by Cathars, 363,
380; between relatives, permitted
by Waldenses, 369-70, 372
Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 185-
87
Mauran, Peter, see Peter Mauran
Maurin, provost of Toulouse, 190
Maximin, Roman emperor, 93
858
Meat, abstention from: by early here¬
tics in the West, 20, 87; by Cath-
ars, see Foods, heretical doctrines on
Melchizedek, identified with Seir and
Lucifer, 232
Melioramentum (heretical ceremony),
46, 485, 490; description of, 382,
467
Mercenaries, excommunication of,
650/114Q, 727/113
Merchants, 20, 168, 186-87
Mercy (mercies), Catharist concept of,
607-9 passim
Messalians (ancient heretics), 12, 13-
14, 17, 18
Metz, 39, 257-58
Michael Psellus, 666/il3
Milan, 32, 151, 169, 221, 337, 715/i7
Milk, abstention from, see Foods, he¬
retical doctrines on
Milui (sect), 278
Miracles: accepted by Cathars, 48,
313, 362; denied by Cathars, 172,
311, 338, 362; denied by Walden-
ses, 391
Missionaries, heretical, 20, 22, 27, 32,
75, 82, 88, 160-61, 168, 169, 186-87
Modena, 33
Molinier, Charles, 59
Monachus of Cario, of Piacenza, 269,
272
Moneta of Cremona, 63; summa of,
301, 307-29, 351, 592-93, 636
Monforte, 20, 86-89
Montaime, see Montwimers
Montpellier: heresy in, 39; Council
of (1195), 729/18
Montsegur, 653/il76
Montwimers, 27, 140, 692/il8
Morghen, Raffaello, 21, 22
Mosio, 162
Naples, 169, 371
Narbonne: debate in, between Cath¬
olics and Waldenses, 210-13
Nazarius (Cathar), 167; doctrines of,
344, 362-63
Neo-Gnostics, 6, 17
Neo-Manichaeans, see Manichaeans
Neo-Platonism, 10, 19
Index
Neustadt, 187
Nicheta, Papa (Bogomil), 35, 160-61,
169, 170
Nicola of Vicenza (Cathar), 163, 167
Nipon (Bogomil), 692/tl5
Nobla Legon, La, 661 /t61
Norbert, Saint, 101
Nothing (heretical concept), 787/i 138
Oaths: forbidden by Cathars, 51, 141,
173, 191, 193, 199, 239, 313, 323,
330, 357, 361, 381, 383, 480, 489,
600-1; said to be used deceitfully
by heretics, 133; forbidden by Wal¬
denses, 234, 241, 245, 346, 371,
372, 388-89, 396; forbidden by
pseudo-Apostles, 407
Obolensky, Dmitri, 17
Octo Balistorius (Cathar), 373
Odalric, bishop of Orleans, 75
Odo, deacon (Amalrician), 259
Odonus of Piacenza (Cathar), 373
Otdenbourg, Zoe, 651/xl49
Old Testament: rejected by Marcion,
11; rejected by Bogomil, 15; reject¬
ed by early heretics in the West, 20,
72; accepted literally by Passagians,
30, 54, 177-79, 276; ascribed to
evil god by Cathars, 47, 166-67,
172, 190, 237-38, 308, 312, 322, 338,
344, 355, 359; accepted by John of
Lugio, 342; that events of occurred
in another world, 342, 357; see also
Law of Moses; Prophets, Old Testa¬
ment, doctrines of Cathars on
Oliver (heretic of Lombers), 192
Olivi, Peter John, see Peter John Olivi
Ooliba, 233, 238, 719//35
Oolla, 233, 238, 719n35
Optandus de Bonate (Waldensian), 283
Ordeal, use of, in prosecution for
heresy, 39, 104, 249, 257, 680nl
Ordination: sacrament rejected by
heretics, 84, 141, 169; Catharist
practice of, 161-63, 169
Ordinatus (Catharist office), see Prior
Original sin: denied by Henry of Le
Mans, 116; denied by Hugo Spe-
roni, 154; doctrine of Cathars on,
165-66, 171-72, 321
Index
Orleans, 20, 74-81
Orphism, 9
Orto of Bagnolo (Cathar), 167, 170,
362
Orvieto, 32
Otto de Ramezello (Poor Lombard),
279
Otto of Freising, 56; The Deeds of
Frederick Barbarossa, 147-49
Ovid, 259
Oxford, synod at, 246
Pamiers, debate between Catholics
and Waldenses at, 36-37, 220
Parables, interpretation of, by Cath-
ars, 319-21
Pardon (Catharist prayer), 467, 473,
491
Paris, 39-40, 258-63
Paschal II, pope, 97, 111
Passagians, 30, 33, 40, 54, 300; doc¬
trines of, 173-85, 701/i86
Pataria, 23
Patarines, 17, 33, 42, 186-87, 254-56,
257-58, 275, 290-96 passim, 300;
origin of the name, 255, 701n3; see
also Cathars
Paterniani (ancient heretics), 695/tl4
Paul, monk of Chartres, Vetus Aga-
non, 76-81
Paul, Saint, quoted on definition of
heresy, 1-2
Paulicians, 13-14, 17, 42
Peace (heretical ceremony), 45-46,
241, 467, 473, 491, 493, 494
Pelagius, 246
Penalties for heresy, 653/il76; see also
Branding, Burning, Confiscation of
property, Exhumation, Fines, Flog¬
ging, Hanging, Imprisonment
Penance: practice of, among Walden¬
ses, 51, 371, 389; sacrament reject¬
ed by heretics, 83, 117, 191, 274,
312, 389; practice of, among Cath¬
ars, 331-34, 367, 379-80
People of God: identified with fallen
angels, 314, 338; held captive by
evil, 625-28
Perfect (heretical class): among Cath¬
ars, 44-45, 239, 369, 381; among
859
Waldenses, 50, 52-53, 395; see also
Elect, Good Men
P6rigord, 75
P6rigueux, 24, 27, 138-39
Perpendiculum scientiarum, 67
Persecution, expected by heretics, 49,
87, 129, 139, 247, 306, 515, 578-91,
603-4
Peter (follower of Henry of Le Mans),
676n11
Peter, abbot of Ardoul, 190
Peter, abbot of Cendras, 190
Peter VI, archbishop of Ravenna, 73
Peter, archdeacon of Soissons, 104
Peter, priest of Saint-Cloud (Amalri-
cian), 259, 262
Peter Abelard, see Abelard, Peter
Peter de Relena (Waldensian), 283
Peter Dominici (Beguin), 760/i3,
761/115
Peter Gallus (Cathar), 66, 167, 187,
698/i7
Peter Giraudi (Beguin), 760/i3
Peter Hospitalis (Beguin), 760/i3
Peter John Olivi, 55, 438; writings of,
412-13, 421-22, 423; apocalyptic
doctrine of, 760/i4, 761/ill, 763/i25
Peter Martyr of Verona, Saint, sum-
ma of, 58, 266, 275-78, 329, 636
Peter Mauran (heretic of Toulouse),
196, 705/ml3,14,16, 706/il7
Peter of Bruys, 24, 25, 107, 108; and
Henry of Le Mans, 118, 121; doc¬
trines of, 118-21
Peter of Castelnau, 236
Peter of Florence (Cathar), 161, 162,
170
Peter of Lugo (pseudo-Apostle), 759
/ill
Peter of Pavia (Cathar), 373
Peter of Pavia, cardinal, 195, 196
Peter of Vaux-de-Cemay, 56; Hysto-
ria, 235-41
Peter Pastor of Alessandria (Cathar),
373
Peter Waldo, see Waldes of Lyons
Petracius (Bogomil), 161
Philadelphia, heretical church of, 168,
336, 337
Philip (Cathar), 170, 362
860
Philip, count of Flanders, 252, 257
Philip II, king of France, 260
Philip of Greve, chancellor of Paris,
58
Piacenza, 29, 152, 269
Pilgrimages: as penance for heresy,
197; value of, rejected by Poor
Lombards, 371
Piphles (sect), 38, 652*160
Pisa, Council of (1135), 115, 649*121
Plato, 9
Plotinus, 10
Polemics against heresy, 32-33, 38,
59-62, 633-38
Pons (heretic of Perigueux), 139
Pons of Arsac, archbishop of Nar-
bonne, 190, 196, 248, 705*8, 725*6
Poor Brethren, see Beguins
Poor Catholics, 36, 37; origin of, 220-
26; complaints against, 226-28
Poor in Spirit, see Waldenses
Poor Leonists, see Poor of Lyons
Poor Lombards, 31, 35, 37, 50, 52,64,
345; origin of, 271, 272-73; schism
among, 221, 277; conference with
Poor of Lyons at Bergamo, 278-
89; doctrines of, 369-72 passim;
numbers of, 371
Poor of Christ, see Waldenses
Poor of Lyons, 330; origins, 31;
schism among, 31, 277; condemned
at Third Lateran Council (1179),
33; in southern France, 34; spread,
35; compared to Cathars, 35, 271;
confirmation by pope sought, 229;
discord with other sects, 272, 273;
errors refuted, 272, 276; origin of
name, 276, 388; doctrines and
practices of, 345, 371, 372, 373;
differences from Poor Lombards, «
see also Waldenses
Pope: of heretics, 88, 269, 494, 682
*38; Roman, authority denied by
heretics, 388, 418, 425, see also
Church, Roman
Poverty: holiness of, 31, 41, 202, 208,
235; doctrine of Waldenses on, 51,
392; doctrine of pseudo-Apostles
on, 404-5, 406, 408; doctrine of
Beguins on, 414-17 passim
Index
Practica inquisitionis heretice pravita-
tis, 374; Part V of, 375-445
Praepositinus, see Prevostin of Cre¬
mona
Prandus (Cathar), 167
Prato, 33
Pratum, in Milan, 715*7
Prayer, cusoms of heretics, 87, 368,
393; see also Lord’s Prayer
Prayers for dead, value of, denied,
213, 235, 697*26; see also Saints,
veneration of, rejected
Preachers, Order of, see Dominicans
Preaching: against heresy, 28, 36, 58-
59, 119, 125, 151, 196, 212, 225-26,
236-37, 351; right of, claimed for
laymen, 30, 31, 35, 202, 209-10,
213, 215; by Waldenses, 52, 53,
201, 202, 209, 210, 213, 218-19,
258, 371, 392, 394-97 passim; by
Henry of Le Mans, 116; Bernard
of Clairvaux’s sermon against here¬
sy, 132-38; by Eudo, 142; denied
to laymen, 159, 213, 217-20; against
heresy, texts for use in, 296-300; by
pseudo-Apostles, 407-8
Predestinarians (sect) 275
Predestination, 153, 234, 275-76; see
also Free will
Prevostin of Cremona, summa of,
175-85, 297, 634
Priesthood: of all good men, 347-48;
among Waldenses, 391
Prim, Bernard, see Bernard Prim
Prior (heretical office), 466, 472, 473,
474, 481, 482
Priscillianism, 13, 18, 93, 104
Professions of faith: by Cathars, 45,
193, 197, 198, 496-97; by Waldes,
205-8; by Durand of Huesca, 222-
26
Property, right of, denied to the
Church, 117, 139, 149, 276, 356
Prophecy, heretical: said to be in¬
spired by bees, 72; among Amalri-
cians, 260
Prophets, Old Testament, doctrines of
Cathars on: that they were inspired
variously by evil, by the Holy Spirit,
by their own spirit, 166, 172, 312,
Index
322, 354, 358, 359, 363; that some
spoke in heaven, 338; that they
spoke in another world, 342
Prosecution of heresy, 21, 26, 28, 33,
36-37, 40, 41; see also Examination
of heretics, Inquisition
Psellus, Michael, see Michael Psellus
Pseudo-Apostles (sect), 54, 404-7
Pseudo-Dionysius, quoted, 688/i3
Pseudo-prophets, epithet applied to
Cathars, 139
Pseudo-Rainerius, see Anonymous of
Passau
Publicans (sect), 39, 42, 245, 248, 252,
253, 254; origin of name, 723/i3;
see also Cathars
Puech, Henri, 18, 22
Purgatory, existence of, denied: by
early heretics in the West, 25; by
heretics in Cologne, 131; by here¬
tics at Narbonne, 213; by Cathars,
253, 333, 356; by Waldenses, 347,
371, 372, 391, 397
Pythagoras, 9
RaDaK (Rabbi David Kimhi), 444
Radulphus Ardens, see Ralph the Ar¬
dent
Radulphus Glaber, see Ralph the Bald
Rainald von Dassel, archbishop of
Cologne, 244
Rainerius Sacconi, summa of, 329-46,
636
Ralph (Cistercian monk), 236
Ralph (heretic at Arras), 257
Ralph of Coggeshall, chronicle of,
251-54
Ralph of Namur (Amalrician), 260,
261
Ralph the Ardent, 58, 634
Ralph the Bald, history of, 71-73
Ramihrdus, 23, 95-96
Rashi (Solomon son of Isaac), 443
Ratisbon, 646n83
Ravenna, 20, 73
Raymond, abbot of Saint-Pons, 190
Raymond V, count of Toulouse, 36,
190, 192, 194, 196, 197, 200
Raymond Bernard, bishop of Agen,
679n 11
861
Raymond of Baimac (Albigensian),
197, 200, 706nn 18,20,28
Raymond of Castelnau, viscount of
Turenne, 196
Raymond of Deventer, 212
Raymond of St. Paul (Poor Catholic),
716/116
Raymond Trencavel II, viscount of
Beziers, 190, 192
Rebaptizers (sect), 31, 234, 275, 277
Receivers of heretics, 72In 17
Reconciled Poor, 221, 277
Reginald Fitz-Jocelin, bishop of Bath,
196
Resurrection: of Christ, denied by ear¬
ly heretics in the West, 80; of
bodies, denied by Cathars, 167,
172, 231, 239, 300, 311, 313, 323,
330, 355, 358, 380; of Christ, denied
by Cathars, 172, 338, 344, 353, 358;
identified by Amalricians with rev¬
elation of the Holy Spirit, 262-63
Rheims: Council of, 1157, 38; Coun¬
cil of, 1148, 122, 141, 143, 145-46,
649nl21; Publicans in, 251-54
Richard II, duke of Normandy, 76
Rigaud, abbot of Castres, 190
Rimini, 33
Rituals, Catharist: ministration of the
Lord’s Prayer, 468-73, 485-88; con-
solamentum, 473-82, 488-91, 492-
94; Service, 484-85
Robert (heretic of Arras), 39
Robert II, count of Flanders, 96
Robert I, king of France, 75, 76-77,
79, 81
Robert, king of Naples, 424
Robert, marquis of Montferrand, 67
Robert Grosseteste, 640/t 13
Robert of Curson, 185, 186, 261
Robert of Epernon (Cathar), 732nl5
Roccavione, 169
Roger I, bishop of Chalons-sur-
Marne, 664n2, 667n2
Roger II, bishop of Ch&lons-sur-
Marne, 89
Roger of Hoveden, chronicle of, 195-
200
Roland of Cremona, 265
Rome, rebellion in, 147-50 passim
862
Runcarii (sect), 50, 733/i21
Runciman, Steven, 17
Russell, Jeffrey B., 19
Sabbath, observance of, by Passa-
gians, 181, 300
Sacraments, heretical doctrines on:
worth of, depends on ministrant,
24, 30, 98; rejected by Cathars, 26,
238, 246, 248, 273, 312, 313, 323,
330, 379, 384; rejected by Amalri-
cians, 39-40; may be performed by
any good man, 191, 235, 241, 276,
348; see also Baptism, Confirma¬
tion, Eucharist, Extreme unction,
Matrimony, Penance
Sadducees, 275
Saint-F61ix-de-Caraman, heretical
council at, 35, 691nl2
Saints, veneration of, rejected: by ear¬
ly heretics in the West, 21, 78; by
Cathars,, 253, 332, 697/126; by Am-
alricians, 259; by Waldenses, 349,
372, 391
Salvo Burci, The Higher Star, 66,265-
66, 269-74, 636
Samson, archbishop of Rheims, 145,
685nl1
Sandals, worn by Waldenses, 228,
370, 371
Sandal-wearers, 50, 234, 241, 370,
371, 388
Sardinia, 73
Satan, doctrine of Cathars on: that he
" a
invaded heaven, deceived angels,
was expelled, 309, 318; as identified
with the steward in the parables,
319-21; as the principle of evil, 341;
that he rules this world and wars
with followers of God, 363, 450,
458-61; as creator, see Creation,
heretical doctrines on; see also
Devil; Lucifer, alleged veneration
of; Lucifer, doctrine of Cathars on
Schere, 96
Schools of heretics, 64, 186
Sclavini (sect), 42, 167, 336, 337; see
also Bagnolenses; Caloianni, Cath-
arist church of
Sclavonia, 163
Index
Secreters of heretics, 721/il7
Secret Supper, The, 54, 65, 362, 371,
458-65
Segarelli, Gerard, see Gerard Segarelli
Seir, Mount, as symbol of the devil,
232, 339, 559, 796*70
Septimania, 119
Serbia, 16
Service (ritual confession by Cathars),
45, 335, 466, 473, 483; description
of, 306, 333; text of, 484-85
Sheep (as synonym for fallen angels),
164, 232, 338, 354, 359, 364, 510
Sicart of Figueiras (Albigensian), 636
Simon (Bogomil), 161
Simon Magus, 253, 275
Sin, heretical doctrines on: of Cathars,
that sin cannot be committed below
the waist, 170, 240; of Amalricians,
that their acts cannot be sinful,
259; of Cathars, that sin is not
caused by free will, 313-17; of Wal¬
denses, that sin may be absolved
by any good man, 348; of Cathars,
that sin is a substance, 355; of
Cathars, that sins are committed
only in heaven, 355, 360; see also
Penance
Single (Catharist ritual), 467, 491
Six (Catharist ritual), 467, 493
Slater, Humphrey, 651*149
Slavs, 14; sect of, see Sclavini
Soderberg, Hans, 18
Soissons, 24, 27, 102
Solomon son of Isaac, see Rashi
Sons (office among Cathars), 302; see
also Elder Son, Younger Son
Sorcery: and heresy, 249-56 passim,
444-45; and the Inquisition, 767/il;
see also Magic
Souls, Catharist doctrines on: that
souls of men are fallen angels, 47,
48, 165, 239, 309-10, 338; that souls
are born of souls (metempsychosis),
47, 166, 313, 318, 344, 364-65, 372,
461; that souls pass from body to
body, 47, 217, 233, 239, 338, 342,
719*35; that some souls are created
by the devil, 165, 356; that souls
await the Day of Judgment in an-
Index
other place, 213,233, 344, 355, 363;
that souls of angels had a custodian
spirit, 232, 309-10, 311; that some
souls are newly created by God,
357; as a substance, 617-19 passim,
629
Souls, Waldensian doctrine on: that
souls of good men are the spirit of
God, 52, 347
Spain, 73, 244
Speroni, Hugo, see Hugo Speroni
Speronists (sect), 29-30, 271, 272, 275,
754/i52; doctrines of, 152-58, 276
Spirit: created by the evil god, 231-32;
Paraclete, 310, see also Holy Spirit;
of the Virgin Mary, 311; of Christ,
311; of man, becomes Christ, 349
Spirits, doctrines of Cathars on: of
angels, none remain in heaven, 217;
#
of angels, abandoned at the Fall,
309-10; as a substance, 593-94, 608,
617-19 passim; see also Souls,
Catharist doctrines on
Spiritual Franciscans, 41, 54; see also
Beguins, Franciscans
Spoletan Valley, Catharist church of,
43, 336, 345; numbers in, 337
Stephen (heretic at Orleans), 76, 80
Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury,
259
Stephen, Master, at Paris, 261
Stephen, priest of LaCelle-Saint-Cloud
(Amalrician), 259
Stephen, priest of Vieux-Corbeil (Am¬
alrician), 259
Stephen of Arise, of Lyons, 209
Stephen of Bourbon, 30-31, 57; Trac-
tatusy 208-10, 346-51, 637
Suger, Abbot, 685nll
Suicide, see Endura
Summae contra haereticost see Polem¬
ics against heresy
Supersubstantial bread, 469-71, 594-
95, 618-20
Sylvester I, pope, 173, 346, 370, 372,
406
Sylvester II (Gerbert of Aurillac),
pope, 205, 646n83
Synagogue: identified with heretical
group, 254; of Satan, identified with
863
Roman Church, 379
Tanchelm, or Tanchelin (heretic), 24,
95-101
Tatars, 185, 187
Telier (sect), 674nl2
Temptation, double (doctrine of
Cathars), 623-25
Tetricus (Cathar), 67, 307
Thaddeus, (Poor Lombard), 279
Theft, forbidden by Cathars, 480, 600
Theodatus (heretical cantor at Or¬
leans), 75
Theodoric, archbishop of Trier, 268-
69
Th6rouanne, 97, 100
Third Order of St. Francis, see Be¬
guins
Thomas (Poor Lombard), 279, 281-82
Thomas Aquinas, Saint, 2, 639«7
Thouzellier, Christine, 27, 650nl44
Tithes, refused by heretics, 72, 98, 99,
248, 349, 406
Toleration, advocated by Bishop
Wazo, 90-93
Tortolani (sect), 31
Toulouse: preaching against heresy in,
28, 36, 122-26, 195-200; heresy in,
195-200, 231, 237; Catharist church
of, 169, 336, 337; Council of (1119),
649«121
Tours, Council of (1163), 720nl
Transitum sancti patris, 438-39
Treviso, Catharist church of, 160,170,
336, 345; numbers in, 337; see also
Vicenza, Catharist church of
Trials for heresy, see Examination of
heretics; Interrogation, inquisitorial
Trier, 24, 25, 105-7, 267-69
Trinity: heretical doctrines in eleventh
century, 21; denied by Passagians,
30, 175-77; doctrines of Waldenses
on, 52, 350; denied by Cathars, 172,
310, 313, 322, 338, 353, 358, 359,
362, 365
Troubadours, 67
Turin, 86
Tuscany, Catharist church of, 43, 160,
163, 169, 170, 336, 345; numbers
in, 337; see also Florence
864
Two earths (lands, worlds), Catharist
doctrine of, 49, 233-34, 238, 342-
43, 357, 498-99
Ugolus (Poor Lombard), 288
Uldric, bishop of Die, 678n4
Ulrich (Amalrician), 259, 262
Ultramontanes, 50, 277-89 passim,
345, 369-72 passim; see also Poor
of Lyons
Ussher, James, archbishop of Armagh,
592
Usury, permitted by Cathars, 357, 361
Vsus pauper, 760nl0
Vacarius, letter to Hugo Speroni, 152-
58, 634
Ventura of Bergamo (Cathar), 373
Venustiani (ancient heretics), 695nl4
Vergil, 73
Verona: Council of (1184), 33; heresy
in, 337, 646n83
Vertus, 72
Vezelay, 39, 247-49
Vicenza, Catharist church of, 43, 163,
336; see also Treviso, Catharist
church of
Vidal, abbot of Fontfroide, 190
Vienna, 187
Vignier, Nicholas, 160
Vilgard (heretic), 73
Vindication of the Church of God, A,
66, 592-606
Virginity, praised by heretics, 20, 87
Virgin Mary, heretical doctrines on:
of Cathars, that she was an angel,
48, 167, 311, 338, 344, 354, 358,
462; of Cathars, that she was a
woman, 48, 167, 313, 344, 362; of
heretics at Orleans, that she was
not the mother of Christ, 78, 80;
identified by Gerard of Monforte
with Holy Scripture, 87-88; of Cath¬
ars, that she was born of woman
alone, 172; identified by Cathars
with Eve, 232-33; of Cathars, that
she inhabited a higher world, 233,
342-43; of Cathars, that she was
not the mother of Christ, 311, 362,
380; of Cathars, that she awaits the
Index
Day of Judgment in another place,
363; identified by Cathars with
their church, 380
Visconti, A., 86
Vision of Isaiah, The, 65, 449-58;
quoted, 609
Visitation(s), Catharist concept of,
595, 607-30 passim
Vita apostolicat see Apostles, imita¬
tion of
Vivehtius of Verona (Cathar), 362
Vivetus (companion of Waldes), 283
Waldenses: origins, 34-35, 199-210,
272, 387; spread, 40, 257-58, 387,
736n8; names given to, 50, 388;
doctrines and practices, 50-53, 211-
13, 234-35, 240-41, 369-73 passim,
388-95, 714n37; organization, 52-
53, 391-93 passim, 395, 737wl3,
756nnl0,12; and Cathars, 53;
preaching by, 53, 217-20, 395-97,
708/i3; literature of, 63-64; conse¬
cration of Eucharist by, 369-70,
390-91; guile of, when questioned,
397-402; see also Poor Lombards,
Poor of Lyons, Ultramontanes
Waldes of Lyons, 217, 272, 273, 276,
338, 386-87, 707nl; career of pover¬
ty and preaching begun, 34, 200-2;
profession of faith, 34, 204-10; at
Third Lateran Council, 203; doc¬
trine on leadership, 280, 281; sal¬
vation of, debated, 283
Waldo, Peter, see Waldes of Lyons
Walter, bishop of Laon, 249
Walter Map, 57; De nugis curialium,
203-4, 254-56
Wazo, bishop of Liege, 89-93
Weavers, 38, 96, 723nl
William, abbot of V6zelay, 249
William, bishop of Agde, 190
William, bishop of Albi, 190, 194
William, bishop of Embrun, 678n4
William, bishop of Gap, 678«4
William, canon of Nevers, 494, 744«2
William VIII, of Montpellier, 713n6
William, a monk, treatise of, 115-17,
633
William, provost of Albi, 190
Index 865
William Drinknowater of Le Mans, bard), 370
110 William the Goldsmith (Amalrician),
William Muscha of Le Mans, 111 259, 260
William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris, Witchcraft, 249-56 passim; see also
512, 635 Devil, worship of; Magic; Sorcery
William of Champagne, archbishop of
Rheims, 251-53, 255, 257 Younger Son (office among Cathars),
William of Newburgh, Historicr, 143- 45, 273-74, 302, 305, 336
46, 245-57
William of Poitiers (Amalrician), 259 Zarohen (ancient heretic), 734n39
William of St. Antonin (Poor Catho¬ Zeno, 275
lic), 716nl6 Zoroaster, 9
William of St. Thierry, 677n2 Zurich, 150
William the Albigensian (Poor Lom¬